Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Explorer Destroyer

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the thats-pretty-funny dept.

slayer99 writes "I came across Explorer Destroyer yesterday, which is a project that aims to increase the market share of Firefox in a slightly more proactive way than is usual. They provide some code which you add to your front page which presents a banner to IE users urging them to switch to using Firefox. As a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program."

417 comments

  1. That's retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why bother with scripts and such? All you need is IE's own conditional html comments.

    1. Re:That's retarded by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that's exactly the reason why IE must die. If my site is W3C compliant I shouldn't have to use dirty hacks like that to make it render correctly in IE! I shouldn't have to spend 50% of my time developing workarounds for IE!

    2. Re:That's retarded by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But isn't it poetic justice that we use IE's dirty little hacks to bring it down? Remember that evil always contains the seeds of its own destruction.

      --

      Technoli
    3. Re:That's retarded by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      The vast majority don't care about what you, I and other people in the tech community call "dirty", they don't even understand it away. And if playing the nice guy doesn't work, what other alternatives are there?

    4. Re:That's retarded by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I agree that W3C compliant sites should render correctly and you are correct that IE does not always do so.

      However...

      In this case, this is an extension to HTML. And as much as standards compliance freaks hate extensions, your argument is not valid in this particular instance. You do not need to develop a workaround for a feature you would not be using if your page is W3C complaint because you would not have used this feature to begin with.

      IE extensions have proven to be a very good thing for the web overall. It has always been IE that has pushed the limits of dynamic web pages through the inclusion of similar extensions (primarily for the development of Outlook Web Access) which have given birth to the technologies that fuel AJAX and other modern web techniques.

      This, however, does not preclude you from hating conditional comments for other reasons.

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
    5. Re:That's retarded by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm not sure if I tend to code things horribly or what, but I find that 90% of the time, I have to use workarounds to make things render correctly in Firefox, rather than the other way round. Most of the time when I'm handcoding a CSS page, it works fine in Opera (my main browser), works fine in IE but something's always off in Firefox.

    6. Re:That's retarded by sparkz · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's not retarded... for anyone who follows his advice, and clicks the Google Adsense advert and signs up to Google Adsense, then he (Holmes Wilson, according to whois) gets $100 from Google for a succesful referal. That's a pretty smart way of fooling people into clicking the link. Underhand, but smart.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    7. Re:That's retarded by grcumb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "IE extensions have proven to be a very good thing for the web overall. It has always been IE that has pushed the limits of dynamic web pages through the inclusion of similar extensions (primarily for the development of Outlook Web Access) which have given birth to the technologies that fuel AJAX and other modern web techniques."

      What an interesting viewpoint. I couldn't disagree more.

      The 'Embrace and Extend' strategy on which Microsoft has relied since about 1998 is designed to be divisive and ultimately to support Microsoft's one interest: by hook or by crook, to land everyone on the Microsoft platform. They worked with little or no support or cooperation from any other body[*] and more often than not used their position to subvert the activities of others. They published competing specifications and duplicated functionality that others had already implemented through their own proprietary implementations.

      Now before we go any further, it's important to remember that this strategy was dressed up nicely, spoken about politely in marketing euphemisms and was seldom openly disparaging of competing technologies. It is also important to note that very few of the people actually responsible for the creation and fostering of standards ever felt anything but frustration and animosity toward these efforts to subvert the process. I've seen such luminaries as Lawrence Lessig and Sir Tim Berners Lee stand up in public fora and state in absolutely unambiguous terms that 'this MS technology is the single biggest threat faced by the web today.' (WWW Conference, Amsterdam 2000, for those who care).

      It's true that there are some who have argued for accomodation, and while they've achieved short-term gains (RSS and SOAP, for example), the recent announcement of MS-only implementations and extensions of these standards offers further evidence that MS' intentions are anything but benevolent.

      Now, some may trot out the sorry old argument that a corporation's job is to profit and damn the ethical/legal torpoedoes, but the fact is that to most of the people working in standards, this is not the goal. Believe it or not, most of us actually care about the community, and feel that the way things are implemented is just as important as what gets done. So feel free to act as apologist for the soulless corporate machine if you must, but please, don't pretend that that's the only way things can be made to work.

      Microsoft (and Netscape in its time) are not only guilty of skewing standards in their favour. They're also guilty of something far more insidious: the infection of the application space with software designed to lock people into their proprietary approach to things. Often enough, the design is fatally compromised in the process. The example you cite above, Outlook Web Access, is a prime example of how to break things in the name of lock-in.

      Here's a quick summary of the ways in which Outlook Web Access, which encapsulates email access inside HTTP and passes it through port 80 by default, is technically broken:

      • Caching proxy servers might or might not do the right thing - behaviour here is undefined
      • Traffic/network analysis is subverted
      • Security is compounded, as activity patterns have to be checked on more, not fewer ports (think about it)
      • Likewise, security audits are far more difficult, as traffic has to be disambiguated
      • Security is subverted, users can simply tunnel high volume traffic through to (at least) the DMZ with no guarantee that it's being inspected (i.e. no one catches that the traffic is neither going to the web nor the Exchange server; each one assumes it's going to the other and that it's 'okay'. Same goes with large volumes of outgoing information.)
      • Deliberate bypassing of firewall policies, promoting insecure configurations (e.g. pushing things through ports 80 and 443 as a matter of informal policy, reducing the firewall to an ornament)
      • Buggier software due to additiona
      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    8. Re:That's retarded by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm sure the vast majority of people will react to messages suggesting that the page they're reading doesn't work properly under IE the exact same way that Safari and Firefox users react to messages suggesting the page they're reading doesn't work properly under their preferred browser: with a general gut feeling of intense dislike against the idiots who put that website together.

      Whether they think it's dirty or not is neither here nor there. The fact is that saying "My website that does nothing that other websites don't do is inaccessable for several mainstream webbrowsers" doesn't promote your favorite browser - it just makes you (the developer of such a site) look like a complete moron who doesn't care about his or her readers. (Readers who make have otherwise been customers.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:That's retarded by RemovableBait · · Score: 1

      Quite clever. But, for "Holmes Wilson" to get his hundred bucks, the person who clicks must sign up to Adsense (for the first time) and earn $100 themselves within 180 days.

      Within that time, their account must stay valid and active. So this guy might make thousands from his clever trick.. or he might make absolutely nothing. Whatever the outcome, it will be a while before he sees any remuneration.

    10. Re:That's retarded by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The 'Embrace and Extend' strategy on which Microsoft has relied since about 1998 is designed to be divisive and ultimately to support Microsoft's one interest: by hook or by crook, to land everyone on the Microsoft platform."

      Don't like Microsoft's extensions? Don't use them. I've been developing software on Microsoft platforms for years and as far as I know, all Microsoft extensions are clearly labeled as such in the documentation.

      For some examples, see:

      "So feel free to act as apologist for the soulless corporate machine if you must"

      Real people work at Microsoft. I'm proud to say that I am one of them. These are smart people that are doing their damnedest to produce world class software. The truth of the matter is that Microsoft routinely produces extensions that ADD VALUE to Microsoft products. I often use a variety of the MSXML extensions to the DOM because I am developing for Microsoft platforms and they SAVE ME TIME as a developer. I use the __finally construct in my C++ code because it saves me from creating dozens of trivial wrapper objects for simple memory allocations.

      "That last point is the key. Why on earth would MS build an entirely new way to get one's email when secure IMAP or POP3 already exist?"Lots of reasons:

      • It's web based (Why would Yahoo build its web mail? Why would Google build GMail?)
      • Outlook web access also provides access to all features of exchange which include...
        • calendar
        • address book
        • tasks
        • notes
        • public folders (such as email distribution list archives)

      If you should be mad at anyone, be mad at those who create applications with no reguard for alternative platforms. You might argue that Microsoft is in that category, but you would be wrong. Outlook Web Access has had a "Basic" version since 1.0 that has always been compatible with alternative browsers. If you are going to build a cross-platform product, don't use Microsoft extensions. The sad truth is that since Microsoft owns the desktop market, the "soulless" 3rd-party corporate machines that produce software and web pages that only run on Microsoft's browsers and technologies do so because the small market share of other platforms does not justify testing against other platforms and more importantly, Microsoft extensions SAVE THEM MONEY in development time.

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
    11. Re:That's retarded by grcumb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wrote:

      "So feel free to act as apologist for the soulless corporate machine if you must[....]"

      To which you replied:

      "Real people work at Microsoft. I'm proud to say that I am one of them."

      Good for you. I'm glad you take pride in your work. But you've completely misconstrued the purpose of that statement. I'm not arguing that corporations are soulless or inhuman. I'm actually stating the opposite: that it is wrong to defend the image of a corporation as an impersonal and amoral entity. Many people do so, using the old 'business is business' cliche, which completely ignores an organisation's role in the larger community and refuses to weigh the impact of its decisions. I personally feel that both of these are part of the social contract which should extend to organisations as much as to individuals, in relation to the role of each in society.

      Then you said:

      "These are smart people that are doing their damnedest to produce world class software. The truth of the matter is that Microsoft routinely produces extensions that ADD VALUE to Microsoft products. I often use a variety of the MSXML extensions to the DOM because I am developing for Microsoft platforms and they SAVE ME TIME as a developer."

      Again, that's fine, as far as it goes. And if you agree that a corporation is indeed composed of people, many of whom genuinely try to make things better, then you should be willing to accept that one's actions have repercussions for which one must be held responsible, for better or for worse.

      The fact that certain tools save you time when working in a certain context is nice. I like time-saving tools. For me as an application developer who has specialised in managing large collections of amorphous, heterogeneous data, I've learned that standards are more important in the long run that the benefit of a quick non-standard hack. I've also learned that my convenience does not trump the common good. Just because it's more convenient for me to use port 80 for SOAP doesn't make it better. It does the opposite, in fact; it makes the security and management situation incalculably worse.

      If you accept the position that corporations are made of people working for a common cause in a free and fairly competitive manner, than you have to accept that there are certain times when a small individual sacrifice is necessary for the betterment of all. In short, whatever benefits may derive to you should never trump the common good. There are limits beyond which even profit motive should not allow one to venture.

      You either have to accept that, or argue for the soulless corporation - which, of course, we've already rejected, you and I.

      So if you accept that in some cases individual benefit can erode the common good, then surely you can accept that some people would rather that a company not follow a certain course when it's been demonstrated that that particular course is subversive to the health of the community.

      I'm not asking you to agree with me in the details, but you must, in good conscience, accept that it's reasonable for someone to view Microsoft's Embrace and Extend policy as subversive and ultimately countrary to the common good.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    12. Re:That's retarded by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 1

      I'm not asking you to agree with me in the details, but you must, in good conscience, accept that it's reasonable for someone to view Microsoft's Embrace and Extend policy as subversive and ultimately countrary to the common good.

      First of all, I applaud you. This statement makes me honestly feel as though I did not waste my time with my previous post; it is uncommon for someone to argue on the internet with your degree of professionalism. Thank you.

      I can understand your view. It is most definitely reasonable to view the Embrace and Extend policy as subversive and ultimate contrary to the common good, however I feel that view is incorrect.

      You have made a compelling argument for the adherence to standards. I agree that Microsoft's failure to adequately support web standards has done some harm to the common good. Microsoft's support for web standards is poor, however Microsoft is working towards fixing it. I am using currently IE7, it is way better, but by no means perfect. The IE team has decided to fix THE BIG ISSUES that plague developers rather than strive for perfect standards compatibility. Sadly, "broken code" (that doesn't meet web standards, but works on IE) is the de facto standard and Microsoft is working hard to ensure that this de facto standard is not violated (i.e. working "broken code" will continue to work under IE7).

      I feel that formal standards in general can hurt the common good in many cases. Take for example, OpenGL. OpenGL 2.0 is looong overdue. OpenGL is a horribly old standard and it has only survived in modern games through extensions that replace a large portion of the core functionality of OpenGL. ATI and nVidia are constantly adding extensions (and publishing documentation) which the competitor is copying. As a result, OpenGL has remained a standard and you can trust most extensions to work cross-card. If ATI and nVidia did not embrace and extend OpenGL, Microsoft's Direct3D would have destroyed it.

      Standards have their uses, but they can very easily impede innovation. OpenGL was lucky to have implemented a clear extension mechanism. Maybe the W3C should have done the same for HTML.

      Someone on the IE team dropped the ball way back in time (hell, Bill Gates has public apologized for it!), but Microsoft continues to pick and choose which standards it will support with the goal of providing the best possible products. Sure they have made mistakes, but it isn't right to misconstrue those mistakes as deliberate attempts to cause harm while ignoring the benefits sought and often achieved.

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
    13. Re:That's retarded by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Uhm I don't know whether you read the article, but there's a level 1, 2 and 3 box. I chose level 2, which means that the visitor is strongly urged to not use IE, but can still choose to continue with IE. I never had the intention to use level 3 since the beginning.

  2. That's _exactly_ what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ...another browser monoculture. Morons.

    1. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by LGagnon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no guarantee that this will cause another monoculture. AS Firefox becomes more popular, people will likely see that they have more choices for browsers (rather than the old IE = internet mentality). Over time, other browsers will be embraced based on how well they compete with Firefox. And unlike with IE, Firefox is actually competing fairly.

    2. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website". Doesn't firefox get enough promo already? So now they resort to spam. Say no to both and use Opera..

    3. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      When is that scheduled? About two weeks after a cure for cancer is found?

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    4. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they just switch to a "Firefox = Internet" mentality, especially if they were forcibly switched to Firefox by a geek who "knows what's best for them" without them learning anything or making their own decision?

    5. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      Until IE falls below 30% and Firefox goes above 30%, your concerns are unwarranted. Until then, there is still a lot of work to do.

    6. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /closes eyes
      *thumbs up*
      Good for you.
      Thanks.

    7. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firefox is actually competing fairly

      Firefox is a browser, it can't compete. But, let's go on the assumption that you meant "Firefox advocates are competing fairly".....By childishly blocking people from their sites? People used to do this years ago when it was still Netscape Navigator. Worked so well then, I'm sure it'll work again this time.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    8. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by linebackn · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website


      There are already plenty of web sites that say they only work on IE using Windows and won't let you in. The other day I even saw one that explicitly and snobbishly said the only way they would "support" using a Mac was with Windows and IE loaded in VirtualPC.

    9. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, "out" them. Post the link.

    10. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by NemoX · · Score: 1

      That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website".

      Why not? I have encountered numerous banners stating "We only support windows and internet explorer", or "your operating system/browser is not supported at this time". (i've used seamonkey/mozilla since ~v0.92, never been a fan of firefox, and often am on a linux system). Umm, but oddly enough, if I use prefbar and switch my useragent over to "Windows IE 6" I miraculously enter the site! That is just BS. I've always liked to fight fire with fire - yeah, it's a childish vendetta thing, but oh well, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside ;)

      Would I do it on a professional or high traffic site? Not likely. But, doing it on your own low traffics sites is fun :)

    11. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by DaHat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Why not? I have encountered numerous banners stating "We only support windows and internet explorer", or "your operating system/browser is not supported at this time".

      Why not? Because it ends up with people who employ such tactics resorting to the same tactics that they complain about so much.

      So it's ok for web sites to require FireFox but the moment they say that about IE it's suddenly wrong? No... It's hypocritical.

      Last I checked, FireFox and OSS was about choice and forcing people to change sure seems to disregard choice and adds to the general perception of snobbery on the OSS side.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    12. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Opera 9 likes all my fancy javascript/svg/ajax stuff, even though when I started I was only targeting Firefox. Even the weirdest, most complex stuff.

      And Konqueror/Safari aren't so bad off either, other than I'm waiting for their SVG support to catch up.

      So, with IE gone, there is no need for another monoculture. Stuff written for Firefox doesn't have to be viewed on Firefox, just on something other than IE. But even if it does, I'd rather have any other monoculture than IE. It's simply horrid.

    13. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by linebackn · · Score: 1

      I think this was the site I was thinking of. (I go through a lot of these kinds of sites on the Mozilla Reporter)

    14. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by JPrice · · Score: 1

      If I come across a site that says "only works with IE", I'm far more likely to say "fuck this site, I'll go elsewhere" than "well, I guess I better use IE". I wouldn't expect someone using IE to react any differently to a site telling them they should be using Firefox.

      Annoying the people you want to convert doesn't strike me as a particularly good strategy.

    15. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's ok for web sites to require FireFox but the moment they say that about IE it's suddenly wrong? No... It's hypocritical.

      I never said anything about one being "right" or "wrong". I implied that doing the same is vindictive and spiteful, which would make me all warm and fuzzy inside. But, my no means hypocritical

      Last I checked, FireFox and OSS was about choice and forcing people to change sure seems to disregard choice and adds to the general perception of snobbery on the OSS side.

      There have always been many choices
        firefox did not create "choice". You make it sound as if there was "only" IE, since Netscape 4.0. Firefox is about a lot more than choice. There is a history, and it has its purpose (re: AOL vs Microsoft; Netscape vs IE, Mozilla, Firefox; Linux popularity and backing by big companies).

      Beside, people are too ignorant to want choice. Most people just want to be told what to do. Popular opinion never picks the "best" thing, just the most populare (as made so by advertising). Think VHS vs Beta, early windows vs os/2 or macintosh, Bush vs anyone. Personally, I don't want the average windows users using linux - they will taint it, and make it "dumbed down". I just like the concept of blocking IE users to be a dick, as vengence for not being able to bank online with a secure browser.

      OSS is more like a computer socialist revolution than choice.

    16. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to get one of those banners saying "Switch to Linux." All the banners I ever see are "This browser [KDE Konqueror] is not supported, download Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher." The WebCT online course system always tells me "You appear to be running Linux. Linux is not a supported operating system. Please select your operating system below: {Windows} {Macintosh.}" But the ironic thing is that Konqueror on Linux runs flawlessly on WebCT and IE 6.1 on Windows will often crash. Poetic justice, perhaps.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    17. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by ltbarcly · · Score: 1
      By childishly blocking people from their sites?


      Right, this tactic would only be used by the childish.

      Microsoft would never try to prevent other browsers from using a websites functionality (activeX) or intentionally break websites for people who don't use some specific MS product (ms java). Their web applications always render on whatever browser (asp) and they go out of their way to make their technologies OS independant (.net)
    18. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by Coyote · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, they're on their way there. A friend recently sent me a link to her recent photos, hosted on some MSN site. When I clicked it and the page loaded, it informed me that they did not support my OPERATING SYSTEM. Right, not just the browser, they had to tell me they didn't support my whole dang OS.

      Well... that's fine, because I don't support anything they do either.

      --
      My metamoderation cancels your moderation
    19. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Microsoft would never try to prevent other browsers from using a websites functionality (activeX)

      Nothing's stopping Firefox or Opera from using ActiveX. Any application that runs on a Windows platform can use activex controls. The only thing stopping the other browsers from using it are the authors of those browsers.

      or intentionally break websites for people who don't use some specific MS product (ms java)

      Microsoft doesn't make a Java product, and hasn't for years. Even still, back when there was a choice between the MS Java interpreter and Sun's, I always chose MS'. It was faster, used less memory, and more stable. Since they've stopped shipping theirs, I've stopped having Java.

      Their web applications always render on whatever browser (asp)

      You'd almost done a good job convincing me you at least had SOME clue as to what you're talking about. Here's where you went wrong: ASP is a server-side scripting language. Anything your browser sees is written BY SOMEONE ELSE. It's written by the webmaster of that site, not MS. It's true, ASP runs only on IIS which only runs on Windows, but it has nothing to do with how shit is rendered.

      and they go out of their way to make their technologies OS independant (.net)

      Then you go and follow up with this one, and I have to wonder just who ties your shoes in the morning for you. Here's another clue, free of charge: .net was designed to be OS independant. That's why you can run .net applications (once recompiled) on Linux or OSX or whatever. Might want to take a look at the Mono Project. Oh, and unlike Sun who has refused to make Java an ECMA-compliant standard, .net has been from the beginning.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    20. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      "That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website". Doesn't firefox get enough promo already? So now they resort to spam. Say no to both and use Opera.."

      1. SPAM is unsolicited email, not banner ads. Ads are what keep great content getting produced on the internet for free. They have nothing to do with SPAM. At least try to use the proper word when wasting my time with your comments.

      2. They didn't resort to anything. This is not Mozilla's campaign, and it is not sponsored by Mozilla. It is simply a third party website that hosts some scripts that make it easy for noobs like me to put annoying banners on my website to encourage people to switch (and to make some dough while your at it).

      3. Ummm, how is Opera any better than Mozilla in this regard? Of course Firefox is going to have more switch campaigns started by third parties, it is the more popular product. It's not Mozilla's fault.

      To sum up your comment: BLAH BLAH [Insert random, non-sensical text] use Opera BLAH. I hate people who post dumb comments to promote a product. Your comment is just as annoying as a banner ad, and both are promoting browsers, so can your comment be marked as SPAM? [/rant]

    21. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Firefox has been around in final version since November 2004. This project started about a week ago. It is not sponsored by Mozilla. I have yet to see a single site actually use this (I do use Explorer from time to time). So yes, they are competing fairly. Try thinking before commenting.

    22. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by nuOpus · · Score: 1

      Now, how the heck is this different than thousands of web sites that sense for Internet Explorer and if not give you a message saying you have to use Internet Explorer? LOTS of those sites have absolutely no reason for this.

      For some reason its wrong if another company uses those same tactics?

    23. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by martinX · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly a non-conforming website, more a single-platform application. Yes, they could have done better, but it's more of a PITA from an app vendor than a slap in the face to W3C standards.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    24. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by shelterpaw · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. The way I voice my opinion on sites that do not support Firefox, Safari, or Mac's is by not going to the site. I will often contact them to let them know, but what I have found is the people running those sites say they don't get enough users of those browsers or OSs. So essentially your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

      I like the idea of having a non-intrusive one line statement on the top of the page that suggests switching. Similar to when firefox asks you if you want to install a plugin.

    25. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      duh, oh, okay. gee, where would I be without such brilliant intellectuals such as you. I shall go drool in a corner now.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    26. Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... by ltbarcly · · Score: 0
      Here's another clue, free of charge: .net was designed to be OS independant. That's why you can run .net applications (once recompiled) on Linux or OSX or whatever.


      Wrong. .net compiles to bytecode which can be run by any machine which has a bytcode runtime for .net. However, as soon as you use any class from the .net standard library you lose all portability. The library is encumbered. .net will only run well on windows unless it is very carefully designed to be cross platform (no winforms etc).

      With java you can run on any system with a java runtime, and that includes the entire API not just the bytcode interpreter.

      Microsoft doesn't make a Java product, and hasn't for years. Even still, back when there was a choice between the MS Java interpreter and Sun's, I always chose MS'. It was faster, used less memory, and more stable.
      ...and only ran on windows, and intentionally broke compatability with sun's java. Since java was slow at that time, and had no JIT, this destroyed the only advantage java had. Coincidently, it slowed down adoption of Java, which gave microsoft time to come out with .net which you seem to love so much without knowing anything about.

      And asp does have some 'features' which only work with IE. Look it up in between giving Bill Gates back massages.
  3. Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

    1. Re:Unbelievable. by bunratty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you give an example of what you're referring to? When has Microsoft or its friends encouraged downloading software, and the idea was condemned by open source advocates?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:Unbelievable. by larien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My thoughts, mainly on option 3, however... A banner "ad" suggesting Firefox is the most you should use, to be honest.

    3. Re:Unbelievable. by Crizp · · Score: 1

      If you use the "Level 3" code, you effectively block IE users from your site, making it nonfunctional. Isn't that what IE-only sites are doing?

    4. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Also, why force people into using Firefox? Are we trying to lock users into another web browser? There are plenty of other browsers out there besides IE and Firefox.

      This is ridiculous, really. What if Microsoft launched a campaign to send full page DHTML banners to Firefox users about IE7? What kind of uproar would we have over that?

    5. Re:Unbelievable. by bunratty · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, people say that's a dumb idea, and I agree. But the question is, do open source advocates condemn it? If so, can you show me where?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    6. Re:Unbelievable. by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

      Absolutely.

      I would like to point out that this "project" has been pushed (possibly by its creator) on SpreadFirefox.com for quite some time, but it has met with the appropriate response: NO. Link to the post. I'm an active SFX member, and I can tell you that most members of the community realize how annoying and stupid this idea is. Browser-detection scripts and browser-specific behavior should be buried and forgotten. Firefox is about standards, and the community acknowledges that.

      I know the creator of those scripts is trying to help, but his/her aim is terrible.

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    7. Re:Unbelievable. by drspliff · · Score: 1

      Not specifically Microsoft doing it directly, but rather ignorant web designers/developers forcing you to use Internet Explorer or whichever browser.

      But this time it's coming from aparently 'clued up' people, with the promise of a pot of gold just over the hill.

      At the end of the day the only thing it's doing is helping to create another mono-browser culture, rather than using standards based websites to provide information to older, future or crippled generations of browsers via graceful use of markup/stylesheets.

      I hope this fad doesn't last.

    8. Re:Unbelievable. by jgrahn · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

      You seem to assume that because it's on Slashdot, Slashdot and its readers think it's a good idea. I don't believe that's the case.

      It's a stupid idea, and it's against ideas that are more important than open source. It's against the idea that the network protocols should be client-neutral, and that graceful degradation should take place when you use a client that (like IE) sucks.

      It's stupid, and it won't work.

    9. Re:Unbelievable. by penguin-collective · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. And when Microsoft uses it, it's a monopoly with a billion dollar marketing budget using it to promote a monopoly. When Firefox uses it, it's a community project trying to get noticed against Microsoft's billion dollar ad budget. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference, but it's a big and important difference nonetheless.

    10. Re:Unbelievable. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

      Obviously this is just one misguided project by a small number of people -- it wasn't given a consensus mandate by the community.

      In any case, this sort of "shat upon IE" thing has been around in the zealot camps for some time. While Opera is my primary browser, and Firefox is my secondary browser, occasionally I browse with IE. Every now and then I come across some lame, evangelical site that denies me access on the basis that I'm colluding with the great Evil Microsoft by using Internet Explorer. I hit back and never visit that site again -- the world doesn't need idiots trying to unnecessarily coopt others.

    11. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I expected a post like this to be modded up to +5 Insightful. But frankly, you people miss the damn point!

      Look at all the IE-only websites. Firefox has reached about 10% market share now, yet there are still people out there who develop for IE only, with no legitimate reason to do so. If you speak to those webmasters, you'll probably hear something like "I don't care about the minority". Why is this a problem? Because as long as IE has the most market share, it holds back the W3C standards!
      • For example, IE doesn't support PNG alpha channels. This is 2006, every single browser but IE supports alpha channels, there's absolutely no reason for IE to not support it! Yes yes I know about IE 7, but how many years will it take before it's out? IE 7 won't have a significant market share for a long long long long time, and during all that time we're stuck in the no-alpha-channel-dark-ages. And yes I know about the PNG hack, but I shouldn't have to use it! And the PNG hack doesn't work for background images (translucent background images can be very useful for rounded borders or shadows).
      • IE's (at least version 6's) XHTML support sucks. It has almost no XHTML support. XHTML is rendered as HTML 4, but a bigger problem is that IE doesn't even support the application/html+xml MIME type!! As a result I'm forced to configure my web server to send text/html as MIME type, causing all the other browsers to interpret the document as HTML 4 instead of XHTML. This makes XHTML almost useless.
      • CSS support. IE doesn't support the 'overflow' property, for example. IE's support for 'margin' and the 'em' unit is broken.
      • And numberous other things. When I design a website, I test it in Firefox and Konqueror, and validate the code with the W3C validator. If it's valid, and it works on Firefox and Konqueror, then it usually works on Opera too. But not IE. Almost every single time I have to use IE conditional statements to include a custom, IE-specific CSS to fix the layout.


      This has got to stop. As a webmaster, I'm sick of hacking my website to be IE-compatible while I'm already W3C-compliant, and I'm sure many webmasters are sick of it too. The only way to fight this is to ensure that IE loses more of it's market share. We cannot wait for IE7, that takes too long and who knows what else Microsoft refuses to fix. Yet Firefox still doesn't have more than 10% market share. It's time for more aggressive weaponry, because apparently you can't win by playing the nice guy. Plus I'm sick and tired of all the IE-specific sites. The only way to get rid of them is by decreasing IE's market share.

      I don't care what browser will have the most market share, as long as it's not IE (or IE shells). Every single modern browser out there has good support for W3C standards - except IE.
    12. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhm no it isn't. Every single browser except IE has superb support for W3C standards. As long as any non-IE browser gets more market share, webmasters who want to design a website according to the W3C standards will be able to do so, instead of holding themselves back and resorting to IE-specific hacks to make the website render correctly in IE, just because IE's the only one that doesn't render things properly.

    13. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      And I say YES to this campaign. Firefox is about standards? Sure, but what good are those standards when the browser that 80% of the users use can't render those standards properly? Every other single browser out there can - but not IE. IE is holding the standards adoption back. I'm sick and tired to have to spend 50% of my time tweaking my W3C-compliant websites to make it render correctly in IE, often resulting in IE-specific hacks using conditional statement comments.

      Apparently, spreading better browsers by word-of-mouth and quality alone is not enough. Firefox has around 10% market share but that's not high enough. And many people refuse to install Firefox/Opera/AnyOtherBetterBrowser because they fear the unknown. It's time for more aggressive weaponry.

    14. Re:Unbelievable. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have to say this is the classic example of someone trying to do things the right way "by the booK", and ends up doing everything wrong. A few points:

      + Sending a XHTML DOCTYPE to IE actually breaks it by putting IE in "legacy CSS" mode. Send a HTML4 DOCTYPE and it's not perfect, but margin and em will work at least.

      + No browser has any sort of XHTML support except for Mozilla Firefox. The rest just fake it as HTML4, except for IE which correctly doesn't accept a MIME type for a document it can't handle correctly. So IE & FF are correct, Safari and Opera are broken.

      But here's the fun part: even though Firefox correctly accepts XHTML, it disables progressive rendering and makes your site load much slower. Why would you want to do that?

      So, while making XHTML compliant pages is admirable, realistically you want to serve HTML4 to current browsers.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    15. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

      Right on. Here's another thing that pisses me off. Even though the police condemn kidnapping, they confine criminals against their will. Those hypocrites say they are opposed to kidnapping and then they engage in it themselves.

      In case you are too stupid to get the point--which based on your ignorant comment you may be--one must consider not just what action is being performed but also who is performing it and why. Firefox does not abuse a monopoly to unfairly curtail competition like Microsoft does. A thrid grader could grasp the difference, but not you, apparently.

    16. Re:Unbelievable. by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's time for more aggressive weaponry.

      I'm sorry you feel this way, but I understand your position as someone who does a lot of webmastering. I've done it myself, and yes, it's frustating.

      I have to disagree with you, though. People have a right to choose, and they have the right to choose the crappy browser that breaks standards and monopolizes the desktops. I think IE will never fall under the 30% market share (note: completely made-up percentage), if only because there's people who just don't use their computers or the Internet enough to even merit downloading another browser. Those people will use whatever's intalled on their computer, and they won't care as long as it works.

      What I'm trying to say is that you will always have to tweak your sites to work on IE. IE will always have a significant market share, and I don't see the day when they become fully compliant. They will fix some CSS bugs because of the pressure other browsers are exserting, but they'll probably stop half-way. It's just not efficient in terms of investment and revenue.

      Annoying IE users will only drive them away from your websites. But maybe you'll be happy seeing the IE percentage go down and think of it as a good thing. I just think it's plain wrong. People just want to surf the web, why do you they have to pay for some stupid (for them) browser war?

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    17. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Microsoft uses this here (try this with Firefox): http://shopping.live.com/
      You can't use their Windows-Live-Shopping with Firefox.

      So let us use the same on our sites and block IE too (that would be demo 3): http://explorerdestroyer.com/demo3.html

    18. Re:Unbelievable. by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate developing around IE's shortcomings and agree with your other comments, particularly on the translucent PNGs, one handy thing IE introduced years ago is overflow-x and overflow-y. It's not a CSS standard (proposed for CSS 3 though, but it's been so handy that Firefox started supporting it in the 1.5 release. I rather wish Safari and Opera were updated to support this too.

    19. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Do most people really "choose", or do they just use it because they don't know better? I think it's the latter. Installing Firefox or any other browser only takes a few seconds.
      2. What about my ability to choose? As long as people continue to write IE-only websites, I cannot always use the browser I prefer. As long as IE has bad W3C support, I have to spend 50% of my time tweaking my sites. People force me to use IE, why is it not justified if I do the same to them?

    20. Re:Unbelievable. by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Do most people really "choose", or do they just use it because they don't know better? I think it's the latter.

      That's true. But you should ask yourself whether most of these people even care about knowing better. My guess is they don't.

      Installing Firefox or any other browser only takes a few seconds.

      That's what it takes you to install Firefox. You do realize there's people that never download or install programs, and people who don't even know what downloading or installing means, don't you? How many people know what a browser is? And again, how many people care? That point is mute unless you plan on going around the world installing Firefox on all computers and showing people how to use it. No, it's not the same. The icons are different. Laugh all you want, that's the reaction of a real user.

      Your second point is, again, very true, but unrealistic. People don't care about this. They want their browser to work. Is it unfair that Micrsoft is taking advantage of this and promoting the creation of IE-exclusive websites? Hell yes! But, in the end, it's all about giving the users the best experience possible. You're not doing that by supporting a project like this.

      My only hope is that webmasters will become more aware of web standards and develop sites that are compatible for most browsers, IE tweaks and all. That's as good as it gets, IMO.

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    21. Re:Unbelievable. by MP3Chuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      "IE's (at least version 6's) XHTML support sucks."

      As will IE7's. They confirmed a while back (on the IEBlog, I believe) that there won't be any support for the application/xml+xhtml MIME type.

      --
      Who doesn't like free music?
    22. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My dad is a real user. He has trouble remembering how to shut down the computer. He doesn't understand the concept of windows - when a dialog pops up, he asks how to get back to the previous page because he doesn't know he's supposed to click on the 'X'. He's a typical novice user with minimum computer skills. Yet he could smoothly switch back and forth between IE and Firefox. Heck, he can't even tell the difference. The back button still looks like a back button even when it's different. A window still looks like a window. But that's not all: he could switch between the Chinese Linux Firefox (which is what he usually uses) and the English IE (when I need Windows occasionally), even though he can't read English. So I have a hard time imagining that other people cannot recognize that a back button is a back button, when there's a text called "Back" written on it.

      I'm supporting this campaign because it's in my best interest to have as many people as possible use a non-IE browser. It would lower the required to make it render correctly for everybody. That results in a better website, which is good for my visitors. Look at all the productivity that is currently lost because webmasters have to tweak the site for IE.

      Using "users don't care" as an argument to not do something is not a good argument IMHO. Most people don't know or care about peak oil (Google it) and just want to live their lifes, but does that means that people shouldn't do something about it? If most people don't know or care what democracy is, does that mean that the people who do know shouldn't support it?

    23. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hear hear! My sentiments exactly.

      I'm coding a couple of layouts at the moment. Made an xHTML structure, slapped on a stylesheet, and BAM. It worked in every sane browser. Fire up IE, and I get a grey, mangled blob. So in order to get that retarded thing to work, I have to add some IE specific CSS (ugh!) to load jpgs instead of semi-transparent PNGs, which I then have to absolutely position with *javascript*, in order for the image to be aligned with the background properly. And oh no, that's not all. I also actually have to develop all those IE specific JPGs.

      In the end, I just thought screw this shit. I love sites that are functional in every browser, but *not* if it means having to spend extra hours just to fix it for one browser. If people want to continue to use an outdated browser which doesn't even support the most basic CSS standards, be my guest. Just don't expect any of my sites to look good on your monitor. If I lose a part (90% for all I care) of my audience like that: so be it. At least I'll know that my sites will be accessible to those with various handicaps, except for the IE-handicap.

    24. Re:Unbelievable. by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      To Bill it's always a war, so in wartime everyone pulls out their "dirty tricks" agendas. That's the way it has always been done. If the game has no rules, then you burn the Geneva convention, and carry on regardless.

    25. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your arguments all seem very good and well thought out. Except that you create your own problems "When I design a website, I test it in Firefox and Konqueror, and validate the code with the W3C validator" and then blame it on IE.

      What is the argument against the exact opposite stance? For example, I say
      "I'm sick of hacking my website to be Firefox compatible while I'm already IE compatible". When I look at my web sites visitors, the number of non-IE browser SIMPLY does not justify the work needed to support Firefox.

      "But Firefox is standards compliant!!" Who give's a rats ass? I have worked with standards for a long time, ANSI, IEEE etc and all they do is slow progress to a snails pace with bickering, in-fighting and compromises that produces 'worst of class' improvements.

      Now I will give you that IE got pretty stagnate as a result of lack of competition. But standard compliance hasn't done dick for that. What Firefox needs is to say screw standards and come up with some innovations that give me a reason to use it. Until then, the DeFacto standard, which in the end is all that counts, is going to remain just that.

    26. Re:Unbelievable. by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      I can tell you that most members of the community realize how annoying and stupid this idea is. Browser-detection scripts and browser-specific behavior should be buried and forgotten. Firefox is about standards, and the community acknowledges that.

      One slight little problem: Internet Explorer is not standards compliant. It's a terrible browser that results in a reduced end user experience.

      When you *know* that switching browsers will make using your product easier and better, shouldn't you let them know that? So, I don't write products that you can't use with IE, but there are plenty of things that you can do with Firefox/Moz that you can't with IE, and when these exist, and enhance the user's experience, I like to let them know.

      I didn't know you could earn money referring people to FF, though...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    27. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      My dad is a real user. He has trouble remembering how to shut down the computer. He doesn't understand the concept of windows - when a dialog pops up, he asks how to get back to the previous page because he doesn't know he's supposed to click on the 'X'. He's a typical novice user with minimum computer skills. Yet he could smoothly switch back and forth between IE and Firefox. Heck, he can't even tell the difference.

      I believe you just conceded the argument.

      IME, the only difference most users can tell is that some sites only work with IE. As I've said before, you can argue that people should support W3C standards all you like, but the reality is that when Microsoft have 80+% market share, they define the only standard that matters. The stubborn insistence of the developers of alternative browsers - those of Firefox in particular - that they will support W3C standards only and not render non-standard pages written for IE, is one of the major reasons more people don't use other browsers, IMHO.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    28. Re:Unbelievable. by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

      1. Firefox does not have a monopoly
      2. It works - why not learn from the other side
      3. Give them a taste of their own medicine
      4. I doubt anyone is using this on revenue generating sites and inconveniencing paying customers
      5. Plenty of sites have "you need a modern browser" messages and few people object to that, so what is wrong with a "you need a standards compliant browser"?
      6. Assuming it is being used on otherwise non-profit websites, it is a reasonable reaction to MS's assumption that everyone else should bear the cost of working around their bugs.
    29. Re:Unbelievable. by causality · · Score: 1

      Rather than mark this as flamebait, I'd like to see someone discredit it on a factual basis. The premise of the parent post seems to rest on IE having less than superb support for W3C standards. Unless this can be demonstrated to be blatantly false then this is not flamebait, it is merely an opinion and the moderator seems to think that the moderation system is how you show disagreement.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    30. Re:Unbelievable. by Doytch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree with you on the browser-detection-scripts.

      Check Skype's site for an example of how such scripts can help computer newbies install things. It has a step by step set of screencaps that show how to install it using either Firefox or IE(maybe others, I didn't check). Think about the mother who got Firefox installed on her computer by her geek son and is trying to follow the installation steps given in an IE fashion. People who see a technology like this that can help adoption of Firefox etc. and throw it away are simply being short sighted.

    31. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm.. That site is beta, and says it doesn't /yet/ support Firefox, but they're working on it.

    32. Re:Unbelievable. by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      "But you should ask yourself whether most of these people even care about knowing better."

      Apathy resulting in ignorance is a crime in and of itself. Being stupid through willful omission of effort is wrong. I own a bike, I know the basics of how a bike works. I own a computer, I know the basics of it's operation. I have an oven, I know how that works. If I owned a car, I would learn the basics of it's operation. I vote, the exercise of political force. Such an extreme measure requires even more study.

      I use a web browser I know the basics of it's operation. Being stupid through lack of effort is not okay. It is not acceptable. It is the root cause of most of this worlds problems.

    33. Re:Unbelievable. by benjamin_pont · · Score: 1

      The idea isn't bad, but the execution is. Instead of having an annoying message, "Hey, we see you're using IE, why don't you try, etc...", the code could simply detect IE and then display a small banner ad to promote Firefox in a more subtle, unobtrusive way. Some people still might not like the banner ad idea, but it's a fair compromise and the visitor will just think everyone sees the promotional banner as opposed to being notified that they were 'singled out' as an IE user. That's a bit creepy to most people.

    34. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      The problem with your "defacto standard" is that today's defacto standard can become something entirely different tomorrow. IE's "standard" is not defined. It can change in any future versions. It's impossible for other browsers to implement IE's "standard" properly because it isn't defined. W3C's standard on the other hand is defined, and you know that browsers are working towards it. Especially now, when web browsers on embedded devices (such as mobile phones) become increasingly more popular, support for the W3C standards becomes more important than ever.

      And your "defacto standard" sucks in it's own way. IE's broken support for the 'em' unit and nonexistant alpha channel support are holding back a lot of people.

      "When I look at my web sites visitors, the number of non-IE browser SIMPLY does not justify the work needed to support Firefox."

      Well if your website doesn't render correctly in Firefox then of course no people would use Firefox to visit your website!

    35. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > People force me to use IE, why is it not justified if I do the same to them?

      There's a very old term for it - "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

    36. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Just because it's the reality doesn't mean it's a good thing. There will never be progress if everybody thinks like that.

      "but the reality is that when Microsoft have 80+% market share, they define the only standard that matters."

      They don't "define" the standard. In fact, the MS "standard" is not defined at all! What today is considered the standard can change at any time in any future version of IE. You're just designing for its quirks and bugs. Third party developers cannot create good implementations of the MS standard. Thinking that the MS standard is the only thing that matters is not looking further than today. Look around you - embedded devices are becoming increasingly popular. There are more and more mobile phones with Internet support, and many of them sure as hell don't run Windows or IE. On the other hand, the W3C standard *is* defined, and anybody can implement it. All browsers are working towards better W3C support, and most of them already have superb W3C support.

    37. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Redundant

      http://www.quirksmode.org/
      Reproduce it yourself. Especially the broken alpha channel support and the broken 'em' unit support in IE are annoying.

    38. Re:Unbelievable. by hector1965 · · Score: 1

      since when using IE is a matter of choise

    39. Re:Unbelievable. by rgigger · · Score: 1

      Well, if you wanted to use SVG on your website and not code a whole separate site that works without SVG then I think it would be very justified. SVG is an open standard. SVG is very useful. I thought about doing this before there was any project or before there were any incentives. Especially if your site provides a FREE SERVICE. Why not ask people to a standards complient browser that doesn't have a rendering engine that hasn't been upgraded in 6 years.

    40. Re:Unbelievable. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Following up on my other response. There's two kinds of IE-Haters:

      People who don't know what they are doing and complain about "em". This is you.

      People who do what what they are doing and complain about the "Peekaboo Bug" and the lack of position:static and so on. This is not you.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    41. Re:Unbelievable. by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's prove how much better the OS product is by going out of our way to be obnoxious to people who don't use it! The site's "Level 3" ad actually, arbitrarily forbids people to access a page using IE, with a dishonest "not compatible" notice.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    42. Re:Unbelievable. by rdieter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For example, IE doesn't support PNG alpha channels.

      Hate rain on your parade, but neither does firefox/mozilla (for printing anyway):
      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235097

      -- Rex
    43. Re:Unbelievable. by hankwang · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As a result I'm forced to configure my web server to send text/html as MIME type, causing all the other browsers to interpret the document as HTML 4 instead of XHTML.

      That's not necessary, that's what the "Accept" HTTP header is for. Put this or something similar in your .htaccess:

      RewriteEngine on

      RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/xhtml\+xml
      RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} \.xhtml$
      RewriteRule .* - [T=application/xhtml+xml,L]

      RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} !application/xhtml\+xml
      RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} \.xhtml$
      RewriteRule .* - [T=text/html,L]
      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    44. Re:Unbelievable. by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      I think IE will never fall under the 30% market share

      It's really funny how easily some people use the word "never".

      Sure, IE will probably be an important browser for some years, but not forever.

      First, Playstation 3 and cellphones will bring a lot of non-IE users to the web. That will remove the few IE-only websites that are left.

      Then, IE7 will actually hurt IE marketshare because webmasters will start to use PNG-transparency etc. and will link only to Firefox (because it works everywhere and IE7 only works on WinXP and Vista. What about Win9x? What about Win2K? What about (gasp) MacOS? What about Linux? - It's so much easier to just link to Firefox instead of trying to guess the OS the visitor is running)

      Also, IE7 hurts IE-only websites even more because some "features" that were optimized on IE6 won't work on IE7. Quite some webmasters will notice how incredibly stupid it was to optimize on a specific version of a browser.

      Then, slowly but steadily, Windows will lose it's dominating status in many European governments. No Windows means no IE. And yes, the government is important.

      Right now I think it is pretty safe to say that IE is never going to regain it's domination status.

      Microsoft's problem is that their only real selling point is that domination status ("everybody's running it" because "everybody programs for it" and vice versa). A whole bunch of people only need a webbrowser and maybe email and a textprocessor on their computer (some even only use web-based email), without IE-only sites, there is one less reason to run Windows and those people could easily switch to Linux.

      Of course all that will take some time, probably more than a decade.

    45. Re:Unbelievable. by funfail · · Score: 1

      Also I believe it is against the Google AdSense rules to put referral buttons and say "click the button"...

      --
      Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!
    46. Re:Unbelievable. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      IE's (at least version 6's) XHTML support sucks. It has almost no XHTML support. XHTML is rendered as HTML 4, but a bigger problem is that IE doesn't even support the application/html+xml MIME type!! As a result I'm forced to configure my web server to send text/html as MIME type, causing all the other browsers to interpret the document as HTML 4 instead of XHTML. This makes XHTML almost useless.

      Almost? The IE dev team has Fucking Killed(TM) XHTML. XHTML is useless to the point where usually the only sensible approach is to just settle on plain HTML. And remember that IE7 will not support application/xhtml+xml either, so XHTML is dead and stays dead.

      Usually my approach to fixing IE's horrible CSS support is to conditional comment in a style sheet that just ensures that the site is navigable. I don't care if it looks like ass and whether IE users have two scrollbars while everyone else has none. In the future I'll probably add a conditional comment that displays a box saying something along the lines of:
      I'm sorry that my site looks like a can of paint puked all over it but your browser doesn't properly support a web standard from 1998 on which my site relies (Level 2 Cascading Style Sheets (CSS2)). It has failed to properly implement CSS2 for the last eight years and it will continue doing so in the future - and in doing so it has forced and will keep forcing web developers to specifically work around its shortcomings. Please do yourself and the internet a favor and upgrade to a modern browser.
      [link to getfirefox.com] Firefox is a browser that allows you to customize your browsing experience with numerous extensions. Needless to say, its CSS support is much superior to that of the Internet Explorer. It's also free, so why not try it?
      [link to opera.com] Opera is often called the fastest of the major browsers. While it doesn't have Firefox's extensions it comes with a lot of stuff built in. Of course it understands CSS properly. It's free at the moment.
      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    47. Re:Unbelievable. by westlake · · Score: 1
      I know about IE 7, but how many years will it take before it's out?

      IE 7 Beta 2 went public last week: Internet Explorer 7 : Home

    48. Re:Unbelievable. by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 1
      It's really funny how easily some people use the word "never".

      Good point, but that's just semantics. There's very little (or nothing) that will last forever. I (and the rest of the world, mind you) use the word "never" to mean a very, very long time.

      Your view of the future is overly optimistic, and I would be very happy to see that happen. It's very unrealistic, IMO.

      So, to correct my statement: I think IE will not fall under the 30% market share for as long as Windows is the dominant desktop distribution. And that is not changing for a few decades, I think.

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    49. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I think you're mistaking a standard for a formal specification.

      I agree with you that it would be great if the whole browser world followed W3C recommendations, given their popularity outside the IE world, and the fact that they are formally specified. However, the word "standard" implies a widespread acceptance, and the only player in that game today is defined by "what IE 6 does". Calling most specifications about the web from the W3C "standards" is, unfortunately, rather misleading; you cannot have less than 1/5 of the market share and claim to be any sort of standard, and AFAICS the W3C themselves rarely use that term.

      You don't like it. I don't like it. But it is the way things are, and for the foreseeable future it's the way things will be (except that it will become IE 7 if all the auto-updates take effect and half the market shifts overnight). We can, and should, plan for the future by discussing possible ways forward and seeking to reach a concensus that can be recommended to all web browser developers, but that recommendation will become the standard only if widely adopted.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    50. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather be Right and lose,
      than go all hysterical and maniacal, do Wrong, and lose..

      Odds are you might win if you keep your cool too..

    51. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      That's still better than not supporting it at all. Just because Mozilla doesn't support it for printing doesn't justify the fact that IE doesn't support it at all.

    52. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "People who don't know what they are doing and complain about "em". This is you."

      Then tell me what part of the following indicates that I don't know what I'm talking about:
      - I have a div which is supposed to be a side bar on my site.
      - The width attribute is set to 2cm. Note that according to http://www.quirksmode.org/, the width attribute defines the width of the inner part of a box, excluding padding borders. The padding is set to 1em. The div is floating to the right side.
      - What I want is that the main content's maximum width is the width of the div (including the div's padding), minus another em so there's a little space between the side bar and the main content. So I wrap the beforementioned div into another div, which has a padding-left of 3em (to compensate for the inner div's left padding, right padding, and the extra spacing).
      It should work. Works fine in Firefox. Passed the W3C validator. Broken in IE.

      What part of that indicates that I don't know what I'm doing? Do you even know what 'em' is? It sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. In fact, you sound exactly like those Microsoft zealots who are constantly trolling users of alternative browsers.

    53. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the problem:
      1. It's beta.
      2. It has a neglible market share. Won't solve the problem until a significant number of people use it.

    54. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, stupid fucking OSS faggots think this will help their "revolution" or something. OMG TAKE BACK THE INTARNET!!! USE FIREFOX

      No, sorry, I only have 1GB of RAM.

    55. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      I think that after all these years it should be clear that no amount of discussing can solve the problem. People generally don't care enough until you force it to them. (Before you think 'force' is a bad thing: 10+ years ago not many people used computers. Then managers started forcing employees to use computers for work, even when employees don't really want it. Was that such a bad thing? Many high school kids don't care about homework. Teachers force them to do their homework. Is that such a bad thing?)

      As long as people believe that the IE standard is the only standard that matters, innovation will be held back. Imagine what the world would be like if everybody uses MSML (a hypothetical Microsoft Markup Language, an undocumented binary format). Non-MS search engines would not exist because nobody knows how to read MSML. Mobile phones (except those that run Windows) wouldn't have browsers. Things like PHP would not exist. While the real world is not as bad as my hypothetical situation, the point remains: innovation would not be possible unless the format is open. That implies having formal specifications. There are no formal specifications for IE's interpretation of HTML.

    56. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's the prick who has to show off he's better than others.

      I'm both in the em-crowd and "Peekabo Bug". Try resizing your text in IE and Firefox once, and see the differences in em-scaling.. Generally, IE will scale the text 10-20% more than Firefox, which just kills any positioning you already did in all browsers. This one is impossible to correct for IE, so I just have to leave some gaps and hope users won't need max scale. I haven't even mentioned what happens when you set the font-size in both browsers... Yikes!

      Then there's the table-problems, which both IE and Firefox have their fair share of.

      You probably have more knowledge of CSS than me, but we've all had our fair share of pain and lost sleep over positioning and work-arounds over limitations in CSS and browser-incompatibilities.

      No need to try to show off..

    57. Re:Unbelievable. by Secrity · · Score: 1

      Odd you say that standards slow progress in a web browser standards thread. MSIE's "de facto" standard is moribund and W3C specifications and the browsers that are W3C compliant are lightyears ahead of any released version of MSIE.

    58. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's the fact that designing your CSS to work with IE will make it look terrible for 10% of your users.

      Then there's the fact that designing your CSS to work with IE is MORE PAINFUL than developing it for firefox, opera, et al, simply because they have BUGGY SUPPORT for it. That means trial and error with positioning, mainly.

      It also means that you have to HACK things together with javascript, when you could just have: .element:target { display:visible; }

    59. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then just code your web pages according to the standards. Don't worry about IE users at all -- just let they see how IE can't render your web page correctly. If all people do this, everyone will switch to a compliant browser in no time. This is so much better than not allowing IE users to see your web page at all. Let the people make their own choice, if they want to use broken IE and see broken pages, fine. Who are you to make the choice for them?

    60. Re:Unbelievable. by edmulroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I'm sick of hacking my website to be IE-compatible...
      ...I don't care what browser will have the most market share,
      as long as it's not IE..."

      There is a name for those people who visit your site while using IE. They are called your customers. You sounds as if you do not care about your customers. We all know how well an attitude like that has worked for companies over the years.

      Some people don't use Firefox because they already have IE and it works. Others don't use Firefox because of how it works.

      They might not like how it does things like
      - no "Stop" button on the toolbar
      -a mandatory search control toolbar - the kind of "browser helper" thing people have been told contain spyware (anyone remember "Gator"?). (if they wanted a Google, Yahoo or other search toolbar, they would have downloaded and installed one)
      -they want to view page source in an editor and not in a dumbed down browser window.

      As to conforming to standards compare the rendering of the left column (width: 22ex;) on this site when viewed with IE versus with Firefox.
          http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/programg.htm

      Many use IE so know it works. They normally prefer to not fix what they feel is not broken. If your web site is one of the rare ones that does not work with IE, they are more likely to decide the site is broken than that to download and use some other browser.

      If you want to promote Firefox then tell people compelling reasons why it is better for them
      and not some "Microsoft is the evil empire with all that money and we socialists object to that" type of drivel.

      . Ed

    61. Re:Unbelievable. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      " When Firefox uses it, it's a community project trying to get noticed against Microsoft's billion dollar ad budget. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference, but it's a big and important difference nonetheless."

      That's all very nice and righteous sounding, but in the end, you're still turning into what you hate. There are reasons why the things Microsoft does pisses them off, and they're not all about the monopoly. They go against the fundamental practices of the internet. You're either saying that it's okay to break the standards binding the net together, or that what Microsoft is doing really isn't all that bad.

      That big important difference might be great for rallying the troops, but FF's been successful despite it. Keep doing what you're doing, be patient, they'll come. Turn into Microsoft to make them come, they'll eventually turn against you.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    62. Re:Unbelievable. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      If IE falls as far as to a 30% marketshare, lots of lazy webmasters won't make the tweaks to display their pages well under it. So, people will have even better reasons to switch. It is possible to completely destroy IE, very hard, but possible.

      --
      Rethinking email
    63. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a result I'm forced to configure my web server to send text/html as MIME type
      No, you're not forced to do anything. Just comply with the standard, which is what you obviously want to do anyway.
      IE doesn't support PNG alpha channels. This is 2006
      It has been what, 10 or 11 years since PNG appeared? It's ok to just go ahead and use alpha channels.
      Almost every single time I have to use IE conditional statements to include a custom, IE-specific CSS to fix the layout.
      You say MSIE is holding back web standards, but I say you are holding back web standards by adding these conditional statements.

      You're so close to the answer, just take that final step. Design your web pages for modern browsers, and then you won't have to kill MSIE at all. It will kill itself.

    64. Re:Unbelievable. by westlake · · Score: 1
      It's beta

      So is pretty much everything Google, free and open source.

    65. Re:Unbelievable. by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Ummmm....so use Level 1 or 2 code??? I doubt any serious website would actually, purposefully, limit their audience to 10% of the market. I don't think you'll see very many sites implementing level 3 code....I know I wouldn't.

    66. Re:Unbelievable. by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Uhm no it isn't. Every single browser except IE has superb support for W3C standards. As long as any non-IE browser gets more market share, webmasters who want to design a website according to the W3C standards will be able to do so, instead of holding themselves back and resorting to IE-specific hacks to make the website render correctly in IE, just because IE's the only one that doesn't render things properly.


      Ok, this isn't entirely true.

      IE actually does have a high level of W3C compliance, and in fact supports the latest versions better than a lot of other browsers. (MS is actually the author of some of the more stricter versions of the W3C specifications, ironic I know.) IE7 is very heavy on compliance, but it does continue to allow non-W3C tags.

      Here is where people like to jab IE for not being W3C compliant, it is not that it FAILS to support W3C, but more that it allows NON-W3C things to happen.

      For example, aligning text to the bottom of a cell in a table. It is ok in IE, but NOT a standard. So this is how people sucker others into believing that IE is less 'capable' because they can add that to the list of non-compliance, when IE is actually not doing something but allowing for something outside the standard.

      The second part no one tells people is the reasoning behind some of the non-standards in IE. Back when the Internet was young, a lot of non-tech people were building web pages.

      These people that would forget an end tag or improperly next a tag, and then their pages would FAIL to render in standard of the time Netscape. MS decided rather than failing, the browser should be smart enough to just go, ok the end tag is missing, but we can assume it is supposed to be here so we will render it anyway.

      (Old timers, like myself can testify the hours spent looking for a missing tag or one that was nested improperly. And this was important, as Netscape would just show a blank page if a tag was messed up. IE came along, and even crap coded pages or when a script generated page created some funky HTML, it would display the page like there was not a problem.)

      This is also why a lot of early designers, and even to this day less 'strict' designers of sites prefer IE because IE is very forgiving if the page doesn't fully meet proper syntax. The page will fail to function or even display in browsers like Firefox or Safari, but IE will go, "Ok, this page is messed up, but we will show it anyway."

      But by continuing to allow poor HTML syntax, it is double edge sword, as people attack IE for failing W3C compliance because it allows this stuff, also site designers end up using non-standard syntax or just don't care about proper syntax because the page works in IE and that is good enough for them. (So this hurts non-IE users when visiting these sites)

      For example I myself have used non-standard background and valign tags in the course of my life, I usually code so the page still looks ok in non-IE browsers, but by using these tags, it is a bit prettier in IE.

      Also remember a lot of this controversy is going away, as MS is forcing their people to meet XHTML and they are shoving XHTML at all the MSDN people, ASP.NET 2.0 is very strict on XHTML, and even the new version of FrontPage is hard on pages that don't conform to strict standards. And in this regard, we need to give MS kudos for 'finally' stepping up to the plate.

      So does this mean IE is BAD because it doesn't adhere fully to the standards? You be the judge. I personally would rather have a browser that support non-standard stuff if it means the page will display from some site where the people or the script creating it screws up. Even if it means it supports weird and non-standard tags.

    67. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how many sites have told firefox users they "MUST" use IE?

    68. Re:Unbelievable. by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      First: it wasn't the community as a whole who suggested this project. It was only one guy (or a coupe of guys ).

      Second: There are three levels of warning you can give to a user that uses a program that you think he should not be using.

      1) Gently warn him.

      2) Warn him, but make him jump througn loops to access your page.

      3) Forbid him from accessing your page.

      There are plenty of sites that do 2) or 3) regarding IE. If some sites start doing 1) regarding Firefox, I don't think it is evil. I undersand you if you think differently, but you cannot say that this project is the same as Microsoft's actions. This guy does provide the tools for you to use even a level 3 warning, but the only person that (depending on one's point of view) could be evil or not is the one who uses it. And while I don't personally like level 3, level 1 is ok.IE-only sites do level 3.
      Also, this project's warnings only tell the truth, wich
      is a big difference. If there was a "Get the Facts" campaing about Firefox, with the same level of bullshit, then you would be right.

      I think the warning message could be less annoing (should be smaller). And does it disappear after some secconds? That would be nice. I emailed the guy and suggested this. But anyway, I support this.

    69. Re:Unbelievable. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Well, the first question is (as I said), are you using the right box model? If not, width/padding/border will not work according to CSS rules.

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnie60/htm l/cssenhancements.asp
      http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/about-boxmo del.htm

      If so, congrats! You've taken step 1 in dealing with IE and now width/padding/border/margin works for most cases. But it's still filled with all sorts of annoying bugs. Here's a really comprehensive list:

      http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

      And the W3C validator only checks for syntactical correctness and does not prove your page is rendering correctly or incorrectly.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    70. Re:Unbelievable. by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      "If you want to promote Firefox then tell people compelling reasons why it is better for them and not some "Microsoft is the evil empire with all that money and we socialists object to that" type of drivel."

      I am not a socialist - in fact I am one of the currently-unpopular free-trade types, but I think you are missing a major point on Microsoft. Capitalism, though the best economic system available currently, has some serious weaknesses. One of them is the tendency to form de-facto standards and monopolies. This is especially a problem when the two combine, such that the monopoly controls the de-facto standard such that it's potential competitors always must play catch-up, thus providing no serious threat to the monopoly. People need to know that this is not in their best interest. The American government has failed us, so I'm glad that independent developers and the EU are still on the case - even if it is ultimately futile.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    71. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You totally win.

    72. Re:Unbelievable. by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1
      And since you're waving goodbye, maybe save some of that sugar for the clients that you'll lose when you decide to "take a stand" against the most popular product by a wide, wide, WIDE margin.

      I think your principles are absolutely darling, but in the real world (look it up), you follow what your visitors want, not the opposite.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    73. Re:Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I had seen stupid until I read your comment.

    74. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      I thank you for not posting an inflammatory/trolling post like you did last time. However, I already know about IE's interpretation of the box model because it's documented on www.quirksmode.org. It's even documented that IE6 will switch to standards compliant mode if I set the HTML 4 strict doctype, which I did. But the problem is not the box model, it's IE's interpretation of the 'em' unit. 1em is being interpreted as smaller than it should be. And unfortunately I can't find anything about that in your links.

    75. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "There is a name for those people who visit your site while using IE. They are called your customers. You sounds as if you do not care about your customers."

      I care about my customers and users, and that's why I use level 2, and not level 3. Actually I use a variation of their code: my version displays the box with a half transparent gray shadow that covers the entire page. When the user clicks on 'Continue' it'll disappear without having to reload the page, and it won't come back for 3 days (that's the cookie timeout). And while I won't use it on my commercial sites, I will use it on my high-traffic non-commercial sites.

      And those users and customers would benefit too if I spent the time I wasted on tweaking for IE on doing useful work.

      "Some people don't use Firefox because they already have IE and it works."

      The point is IE doesn't work - as I said, broken PNG alpha channel support and broken 'em' unit support, among other things. I'm not forcing everybody to use Firefox, I'm strongly urging my visitors to not use IE.

      "- no "Stop" button on the toolbar"

      What are you talking about?

      "-a mandatory search control toolbar - the kind of "browser helper" thing people have been told contain spyware (anyone remember "Gator"?). (if they wanted a Google, Yahoo or other search toolbar, they would have downloaded and installed one)"

      Where do you see people ever complaining about search toolbars? I've seen enough average users who installed Yahoo/MSN/Google toolbars and they don't even realize it, let alone complain about it.

      Anyway that's not the point. Then don't use Firefox. Then use Opera, or K-Meleon, or whatever. As long as it's not IE.

      "http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/programg.htm"

      I just tried it out in Firefox and IE. Other than the space difference between the left and right column, I don't see any other difference. But neither look correct. I don't know how it's supposed to look like.

      "Many use IE so know it works. They normally prefer to not fix what they feel is not broken. If your web site is one of the rare ones that does not work with IE, they are more likely to decide the site is broken than that to download and use some other browser."

      Tell the same thing to the people who create IE-only sites.

      "and not some "Microsoft is the evil empire with all that money and we socialists object to that" type of drivel."

      How about "it's safer and features like tabbed browsing makes life easier"? That's exactly what the Firefox box already says.

    76. Re:Unbelievable. by dorward · · Score: 1

      + Sending a XHTML DOCTYPE to IE actually breaks it by putting IE in "legacy CSS" mode. Send a HTML4 DOCTYPE and it's not perfect, but margin and em will work at least.

      Not true. Any XHTML Doctype will trigger Standards mode. Some HTML 4.x Doctypes will trigger Quirks mode. If you send an XML declaration before the Doctype, then it will trigger Quirks mode, but this is sort of forbidden in XHTML as text/html anyway (I say "sort of" becuase the spec is very badly written, it insists you follow the guidelines in Appendix C before serving as text/html ... and then makes Appendix C informative and coaches in language such as "you might want to").

      + No browser has any sort of XHTML support except for Mozilla Firefox. The rest just fake it as HTML4, except for IE which correctly doesn't accept a MIME type for a document it can't handle correctly. So IE & FF are correct, Safari and Opera are broken.

      I just showed Opera an XHTML document with a well formedness error. It gave up trying to parse it when it encountered the error. So Opera gets it right. (Konqueror does seem to get it wrong though).

      But here's the fun part: even though Firefox correctly accepts XHTML, it disables progressive rendering and makes your site load much slower. Why would you want to do that?

      And disables document.write, and probably a few other things.

      So, while making XHTML compliant pages is admirable, realistically you want to serve HTML4 to current browsers.

      XHTML does have a few advantages (like being able to mix it with MathML), but these don't benefit the majority of authors, and the majority of users aren't able to easily take advantage of them. At the moment HTML 4.01 Strict is the way to go almost every time.

    77. Re:Unbelievable. by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      but in the end, you're still turning into what you hate.

      You mean a 500 billion dollar company with 80% market share? I think there is no risk of that.

      You're either saying that it's okay to break the standards binding the net together, or that what Microsoft is doing really isn't all that bad.

      How does recommending a standards-compliant, open source browser that is known to work with a web site "break the standards binding the net together"? IE is "breaking the standards binding the net together" and the solution is to recommend to visitors a browser that is standards-oriented. A free and good one happens to be Firefox. And that's a good thing to do simply because when I don't test for IE idiosyncracies, there is a good chance that visitors using IE will actually have problems and will need a solution if they want to visit the site.

    78. Re:Unbelievable. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "How does recommending a standards-compliant, open source browser that is known to work with a web site "break the standards binding the net together"?"

      Welp, if you were to go back to my original post and figure out what I meant by 'turning into what you hate', you'd have the answer to this. I'd go into more detail, but it's hard to explain something like this to somebody who intentionally misunderstood my point.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    79. Re:Unbelievable. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Oh, a reformed Grammar Nazi.
      See this situation is:
      Eye for an eye.They don't feel their own karma knocking on the door.They make their site hostile to foreign(as in unrecognized,non compliant) browsers.
      And the results are predictable.
      The correct path is to be friendly to all visitors.
      Information loses "academic"/"reputation" value if presented wrong,like a malformed grammar in a post and its criticism(Microsoft IE supporting it,along with majority) vs Users stopping replying becuase of criticism of grammar(Open Standards propoenenents advocating correct usage) .
      Thats like if i started a website in 1337-speak,it will have a audience that understands it but other people will get filtered and waste no time there.
      That the direction of this initiave:
      First you criticize,then you close off to non-elite,and create you virtual closed world(i.e. banning IE ).Forcing users to adopt something they don't want(Lets face it Firefox banners are silly.I judge them as ads(i use opera)) makes them seek alternatives.Its price of publicity,
      you either get more publicity if you conform to users interests or less if restrict usage or access.
      I recall few sites block IE and alot require IE only(this can be used with spoofing client id).While text based,plain HTML works everywhere,IE is still holds majority in browser market,
      and "correct standards" change each year,with new technology coming to dominate the web.IE is written for new technology,user friendliness second,standards third.Its horrible choice (by default its very insecure) but
      for trusted sites its adequate.
      Standards,Grammar and Rules are only effective if you have support,and its not for everyone.Pushing your Standards,Grammar and Rules may get you negative results(such as disregard and hostility) especially when you deviate from mainstream.
      Its like enforcing your values(Perfect English,Perfect HTML,Perfect Conformism(to laws,rules,etc)) vs most people attitude "it works,don't break it".Its just not worth the energy if You can't convince everyone that your values are superior.Your Values may
      have little value for others and important to like-minded people.
      That why people don't care about your browser/os/grammar superiority.Its just
      doesn't have the same value to them.
      [typical OS argument]
        Linux maybe a large part of your life and you value it performance/superiority/features/programs very high ,but most people(and myself) just use the computer to specific tasks and care little about the OS but get upset if their game would not work on linux(which you will probably advise to get linux games or try emulation).

    80. Re:Unbelievable. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      You don't have to know computer at hacker level to use them.They are designed to be simple and user-friendly.
      You don't have to compile your kernel when you need new drivers you just install them.You don't make && .configure && make install,becuase its simpler to click on Install.exe/Install binary.
      User-friendliness reduces time it takes to accomplish something(windows always capitalizes on it,linux often neglects it).
      Every little extra effort makes using the computer more painful(especially for newbies.I recall i had to search for registry tricks and config. files settings to set it up right(on win98))

    81. Re:Unbelievable. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      some people who refuse such ads and start block site hosting images in hosts files.Or maybe visit less popular but ad-free pages that have the same content if they don't know how to block.99% of content on web isn't important enough to manually add filters for,imagien if it will have mandatory Firefox ads.
      just block such sites as ads(adding to hosts file):
        127.0.0.1 www.spreadfirefox.com

    82. Re:Unbelievable. by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I don't think you addressed a single thing I said. I said I know how things work, and I know how to fix them when they go wrong.
      My point was not to say "Linux is superior" or to indicate I'm some uber hacker, because frankly, I'm crap. But I take the time to learn what is needed to get a system working. Why? Because anything more complicated than a spoon will require an individual to obtain some technical knowledge of how it works if they are to actually do anything with it. To take your examples...
      Monolithic Kernels really don't suffer from the problems you describe if you use one of the generic ones. All people need to be able to understand is modifying what modules are loaded and that is not hard. It is no harder or easier than on Windows, just different. I know, I use both and I wish they were both easier, they both have big stinking faults.
      As for installing programs, I use Debian so most of the time I just use apt-get. Last time I checked that was easier than walking to the store to buy a new copy of a program and then proceeding through the 'click through installation'. Heck most programs install themselves without any asistance.
      User friendliness can reduce the time it takes to do things. Especially if they are simple and only need to be done once. From what little I've used of Macs, Apple are very good at this. Both KDE/Gnome and Windows suck at it. Windows is consistent but actually doing something complicated is a pain and the consistency does not extend to efficiency. Sometimes, things should just be in a config file. KDE and Gnome on the other hand, confuse me like nobodies business, as does the fact that very few applications developers stick to the HIG.
      So you see it isn't all bad, and I think user interfaces could be improved. However, people just have to accept that using computers is like driving a car. You have to invest about 20 or so hours of practice before you will actually be able to use the darn thing.

    83. Re:Unbelievable. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      OK as an exception i'll reply,to get you
      informed.But i don't usually reply to such conglomerate of justifcations,just because you DOn't Understand My Replies.
      If people would take time to read them throughly it might get somewhere,but don't :they ignore the content and start to criticize specific points which are'nt important,only leaving the abstract concepts i introduce and points as examples of such concepts in action.

      Windows never had such arcane commands as Unix does,never requires you to mount devices to use,Never had requiremnets of compiling a new kernel with new drivers,
      never had installation too complex to click-through in ten seconds.
      Windows is much easier.Thats the point.
      The concept of software design for users
      to be as intuitive and friendly never
      been the basis of design in unix world.

      " consistency does not extend to efficiency" is a lie.You save much more time if you know what you're doing versus manual configuration and setup.
      You need manuals to administer linux systems,while windows can be used by children.I agree linux is making some progress in usability it still far from being equivalent in term of user--friendliness and ease-of-use.

      In linux you must configure alot of stuff to work properly,in windows all such configurations are working by default.Every windows driver/program/game never require more then couple of clicks to start working.
      They don't require recompiling,configuring,proper set of libraries(which you must use exclusively),emulation or software rendering/mode,new devices,and patches for some specific configuration("workaround").
      Lost productivity and time while searchign fro linux solution,scavenger hunts for bits on info on forums,flustrating documentation,horrible syntax make linux
      alienating to most people.
      Its doesn't matter anymore if you program has all the features and ten times more speed,if its takes too much effort and time to use it - it fails to do it job and any marginally more usable program will dominate the field.
      Each unintuitive feature,extra step and
      manual effort deduce from productive work.If i spend more time and much effort and gain a substandard result i will not use the program anymore i switch to alternative.

      This what makes "brilliant" solutions fail outside the crowd intimately familair with the subject. All non-professionals find the solution too alien and awkward to use and require a Re-training to be productive.While an alternative already exist this seems frankly a waste of time and effort.
      Not to mention any program on linux has equivalent in windows domain and not vice-versa.I don't expect more quality from windows programs then linux.
      I expect usability, Vi VS Notepad is the epitomes of software design in different worlds. A world of hackers and world of users.What is "easy and intuitive" and
      require a minute of learning to grasp
      like text editors:
      vi controls for example, will seem alien and complex to larger untrained audience,which view Notepad as very easy to understand,Click File menu,Save or :w filename :q .Obviously notepad wins.Unix loses(at this point a notepad port seems reasonable but it ALREADY exist on my platform and i have better programs to use e.g. Metapad).

      If Vi didn't convince you to not stop using it you already spend time and effort to learn it syntax,likrly becoming such a "hacker" but this doesn't makes you any more productive then notepad users.
      Its a dead domain-specific knowledge i never want to absorb into my mind.
      I don't want to learn worthless abstractions to unnecessary complex level.I prefer to work in clear,concise and simple domains where i don't need to
      learn each time i try new features.

      Vi is dead,but it remains an exhibit of software design.Artifact of old woirld where Computer Science classes were mandatory to use computers.New software
      must either work for everyone or remain
      a hacker widget.You can't make the secon

    84. Re:Unbelievable. by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Thanks for taking the time to make some good points (and some poor ones, such as installation). However you still are not listening. You demonstrate some ways in which Windows is easier to use for a nieve user. However you completely miss the point.
      And the point is as follows. That people lack of desire to learn how to use a computer is flaw. It is isomorphic to not learning how to drive a car then complaining when you don't know how to start it. A computer is a complex piece of equipment and 'usability' should not translate to dumbing the system down to the point you cant get anything useful done with it.
      You keep using Windows as an example, but I would argue that Windows is a sophisticate desktop operating system that you cannot nievely just pick up and use. I would argue this because I've seen people try to just start doing things with it. They cant, they require training. You might say 'less training than with command line UNIX'. Sure it's a fair cop. But for a properly installed and configured UNIX with KDE, I'd say that isn't the case. I'd say that because I've attempted to teach people on both systems and they peform about the same.
      You say that one should not require a computer science course to operate a computer. That is exactly my point. People do, one way or another, and they should! I understand what you are saying. I get it. My point is I disagree. I believe that everyone who uses a computer should, at a bare minimum understand the very basics of how it operates before they get anywhere near a K or Start Menu. You wouldn't drive a car without knowing the basics of how it works. People shouldn't use a computer without first understanding the basics of how it works. That doesn't mean compiling thier own kernel, but it does mean understanding what a CPU is or what a program is. How the internet works is important if you are going to use it. It doesn't mean learning to program in C++, but knowing what kernel module is or a device driver is essential. You know, the computer equivilant of being able to change the tire on a car.
      I get what you keep saying. You keep pointing out ways in which the simpler operation of Windows makes it 'easier' to use. Well for every simple application of Windows there is an equivilant one on UNIX. This is not true for more complex programs like Word I will grant you that. But using word properly requires considerable training. I know this because I know people who can use Word properly and it is extremely powerful. You compare VI and Notepad, a better comparison would be Notepad and Abiword. I think on the ease of use stakes Notepad wins there, but by a really small margin.

      "If Vi didn't convince you to not stop using it you already spend time and effort to learn it syntax,likrly becoming such a "hacker" but this doesn't makes you any more productive then notepad users"
      Erm, this is simply wrong. VI is very powerful. There are things you can do in VI in seconds you would be pretty hard pushed to do in Notepad in a week. That is like saying that learning to use Word doesn't make you more productive than a Notepad user. It's clearly a flawed arguement. Words is a very powerful document editing program. Notepad, is, well basic text editor. VI is an advanced text editor. There are equivilant packages for Windows (like VI itself). VI doesn't make UNIX better. VI is just a more powerful tool.

      Which again comes back to my point. If a user is going to use a powerful tool like Word or VI, they need to spend time learning to use it. You don't need to do that with tools like Notepad or Abiword. My point, which you have systematically missed, is that people have to spend a proportionate amount of time learning to use the tools they need. Computers are complex pieces of kit, and you cannot just pick them up and make them do stuff.

      As for your point about Firefox vs Opera, that is perfectly true. Opera is a better browser. I use it because I prefer to use free software when I can.

    85. Re:Unbelievable. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Its not a flaw to no want to learn unecessary stuff,Its common sense
      the reason cars require trainign is that
      Cars aren't advanced yet to be computer guided(GPS,voice command and maps based).Are Computers advanced enough?
      Perhaps not voice-guided and/or direct interfaced to our brains with understanding AI which executes thought commands,but we're getting closer.
      Professionals always need to know most
      of their domain,users rarely.

      'usability' should not translate to dumbing the system down to the point you cant get anything useful
      THe falw is that the 'way' if making something useful is too complex,and non-intuitive.

      All technological progress(in usability) simplifies life,reduces human interaction and labor,automates processs formerly requiring a trained human and switches to computer control.It essentialy reduces work-time.

      What you propose is that Computers are unique and would be exempt from
      simplification,requiring training and
      hard learnign curves to operate.
      It the current state of progress,i admit, we should look further into a information age where time is valued much more then today.Free time.
      Would you spend it on learning or you prefer computer to understand you instantly? That is the end of
      usability curve.We can't progress to higher productivity with layer of complexity usual software reqiure(even Notepad has deficiences:).Numerious
      path are going to be explored:the move from keyboard/Screen/Speaker interface to integrated wearable headsets,direct interface to human thought(hopefully not implants),global wireless networks,free knowledge databases and portals with capacity to record memories,new information channels based on virtual reality,persistent user-modifiable worlds.I don't think this be really interesting if you had to learn C++ to use vs just "talking" to computer.
      (this might be a forward to the future argument,it just show my point on usability,that is progress making)

      Modern KDE is closer to windows in usability,though it only a shell,linux
      itself remains user-hostile arcane and
      exceddingly complex to learn.

      "If a user is going to use a powerful tool like Word or VI, they need to spend time learning to use it."
      Software design today deviates from standards of usability towards arcane monsters full of kludges and design failures,making their features largely unused.What is Wrong with VI? With Word?

      A better tool would combine the Notepad simplicity with features VI/Word provides in properly named cascaded context menu with intuitive global configuration.This is true usability,
      not arcane text commands(Vi) or myriads of dialog boxes and menus(Word).

      Simplicity Equals Better Interface:
      A single StraightForward interface for all features application has is the key
      (i.e. like cascaded Context menus).
      A intuitive configuration takes a One separate menu with all settings.
      Properly naming and providing context-sensitive help(Inside the application, a manual or a book i must search for bits of info is unproductive) is very important for beginners,
      Who unlikely to understand terminology,jargon or tech abbreviations documentation uses.

      Extending the program:
      Making the program scriptable is major
      feature which saves much time(though
      it must be simple and intuitive to use(page long text macros aren't one of them)),
      macros and defined shortcuts improve productivity(a Macro menu ,along with Configuration is very useful to categorize actions\settings).
      Another thing that makes really great programs is ability to customize the interface for your needs,which makes usability skyrocket in certain cases( a type of draggable toolbar is example of this,but editing what program(Active state of work inside it actually) looks like is even more powerful(plugins without plugins)).Extensions and scripts/plugins that allow new features
      to integrate into the program are great
      in increasing productivity if users can create them from scratch,using only their knowledge of program itself.

    86. Re:Unbelievable. by asbjornu · · Score: 1

      You are wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. First, it's obvious that you don't develop web pages a lot and if you do, haven't really started using CSS to a greater extent than setting font and background colors. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Internet Explorer has okay support for HTML (it's still a lot of tags it doesn't support there, like ABBR), good support for CSS Level 1, but terrible (and I mean excruciatingly, painfully, wreckingly bad) support for CSS Level 2 (note that the original CSS2 specification is found here and is 8 years old).

      You talk about "The W3C specifications" and what good support IE has for them without being specific about which it supports well. This also leads me to believe that you have no idea of what you are talking about. There are a lot of specifications W3C has released that Internet Explorer either supports half-way with a lot of bugs (like CSS2, PNG, DOM Level 2) and some not at all (like XHTML, SVG, XForms and DOM Level 3). The greatest problem with IE is not the lack of support for newer (well, "newer" is relative, considering that the PNG specification is 10 years old and the SVG specification is 5 years old) specifications, but the half-way support it has for standards like CSS2 and PNG.

      Had it not supported it, and supported HTML the way it's defined (like OBJECT for example), creating fallbacks would be easy. With half-way support, you need to resort to all sorts of hacks to make something work, because IE claims to support it fully, but doesn't, and thus breaks completely if you try to follow the standard.

      Claiming that Microsoft is active in any of these working groups is either a truth with modifications or a blatant lie. Had Microsoft been active in developing any of these specifications, wouldn't you agree that it's a bit odd that the company as a whole and Internet Explorer particularly supports some of them so badly and yet more of them not at all? The obvious fact is that Microsoft haven't been involved in developing any of these specifications and still after almost 9 years haven't managed to read and understand the the first HTML 4.0 Specification completely.

      No, Internet Explorer does not have good support for "the W3C specifications". It supports some specifications okay, some badly and some not at all. Not having full support for HTML 4.01 and CSS2 in 2006 is just embarrassing. Oh, and both background and valign are defined in the HTML 4.01 specification (e.g. they're "standard"), and they're attributes, not tags.

      On a last note, I'd like to point out what's been pointed out many times already, namely that the method Explorer Destroyer uses to detect Internet Explorer and all the code surrounding it, is horrific, terrible, very unsolid and simply said very bad. Don't use it.

      --
      He's a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I can't look away
    87. Re:Unbelievable. by asbjornu · · Score: 1

      Although I don't agree with you or this campaign, I understand your position. However, as a web master with knowledge in W3C's specifications and IE's conditional comments, I hope that you see the value of writing good code. If you have had a peek at Explorer Destroyer's code, wouldn't you agree that it is not good? Infact, won't you agree that it's some of the worst browser-detection JavaScript code you've ever seen? Even though you agree with this campaign, can't you admit that Explorer Destroyer is perhaps the worst way to go through with it?

      --
      He's a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I can't look away
    88. Re:Unbelievable. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree it is not good. That's why I wrote my own look-alike-code, which uses IE conditional statements instead. That way it will even work in browsers that fake the useragent.

  4. Rose-colored banners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They provide some code which you add to your front page which presents a banner to IE users urging them to switch to using Firefox."

    "This site best viewed with Firefox."

  5. WaSP Browser Update Campaign by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Web Standards Project (WaSP) ran a similar Browser Update Campaign a few years back.

    1. Re:WaSP Browser Update Campaign by bunratty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also similar to Google's latest Firefox campaign. Just visit Google with IE to see what I mean.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  6. Annoyance as a marketing technique? by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me or does annoying the people you're trying to attract sound like a poor idea? I know when I am annoyed by something I'm more likely to resist. For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!

    I think if I were an IE user I'd refuse to use Firefox on these grounds. Impress me on technical or philosophical merits, not by being a bully.

    --

    What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    1. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by kryten_nl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many times have you come across a website which, in stead of giving you content, advised you to update your IE to 5.0 or higher?

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    2. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times have you come across a website which, in stead of giving you content, advised you to update your IE to 5.0 or higher?


      Better question: Do you still visit those websites? I don't.
    3. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the bunnies! Eat the militant PETA people!

      Remember, membership in PETA is a strong indicator of vegitarianism, and we all know that the meat of herbivores tastes much better than the stringy, gamey meat of omnivores and carnivores. Yep, PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Activists!

    4. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by witchgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the kind of website you usually lose interest in fairly quickly due to their lack of consideration for non-IE internet users.... I, for one, never go further than that advice and look for information or business elsewhere.

    5. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      I do: User Agent Switcher 0.6.8, but you're right, we shouldn't have to do this stuff.

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    6. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Microsoft thinks it'll work with getting people to use so-called "genuine windows versions".

    7. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Funny

      For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!

      My argument exactly . . . if we're not supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat? ;-)

    8. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use IE exclusively, I guarantee you if I see this banner ad once it'd be the last time I ever see it.

    9. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!

      You didn't say you were going to eat them. Vegetarians can wear fur coats too.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    10. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1
      For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat...


      There's some kind of bad pun in there for me to make... something about bunnies and bloody fir trees... like... "I didn't know bunnies had their own personal menstruating trees." Except funnier...

      Ah well, I suppose I shall leave it to more insightful intellects than I ;).
      --
      "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
    11. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 1

      Please note that I never said anything about eating the bunnies, that's far too practical a death. I said I would skin the bunnies and wear their bloody firs as a coat, casually discarding the meat.

      The point being that when someone is particularly annoying I often feel the urge to do exactly the opposite of what they advocate. Mindlessly slaughtering bunnies for wasteful coats is pretty diametrically opposed to the stance an annoying PETA person would take.

      As an aside, not all PETA people are annoying, just a very visible few. It's kind of like ESR and the Open Source movement.

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    12. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 1

      That's very true. Really, though, how many people who object to eating meat on moral grounds (I'm implicitly assuming here that vegetarians are so on moral grounds, not for medical reasons.) will feel comfortable wearing a bunny fir coat that still drips with their blood?

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    13. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 1

      I don't have a pun, but I do have this: Bunnies bleed furiously while beating off behind bakeries.

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    14. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Just so long as you don't rape them to death, eat their flesh, and sew their skins into your clothing.

      --
      Rhapsody in Numbers
    15. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by stony3k · · Score: 1

      Uhh!! I'm not a vegetarian, and I'd still feel uncomfortable wearing a fir coat dripping with blodd - just imagine the stink!

      --
      Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
    16. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by linebackn · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How many times have you come across a website which, in stead of giving you content, advised you to update your IE to 5.0 or higher?

      I come across this kind of thing all the time. Way to often. And while *I* turn away from such sites, regular blow joe users will stop using whatever non IE-browser they may be using and "just use IE because everything works in IE". And it is damn near impossible to convince these people to not use IE.

      It is high time to start fighting fire with fire (and Firefox!).

      I don't see why people are getting so uptight about this. People are free to use their own judgment as to how to inform, warn, or outright block IE users. If these people want to design sites so they work in Mosacic and Netscape 2.0 they are free to do that too, but the web is moving on with or without them.

    17. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      if we're not supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat? ;-)

      You're made out of meat too, buddy.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    18. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple things things like (img height=999999 width=999999 src=1pixelimage.gif) in firefox will only slow/crash that app, not you're entire fucking machine.

      and that's just basic html parsing. the reason is browsing the internet with your computers shell is a bad idea. it's like irc'ing as root. you just dont fucking do it, no matter how "confident" you are. and as far as the "raising firefox's browser share" bullshit argument above, i think it's pretty clear that theres a firefox buzz right now.. if i went to a page, as Joe Random user (whom it appears we're assuming hasn't already -heard- of firefox) and theres a.. say.. Opera Ad urging me to switch? What's the likelihood in that denting IE's browser share? Now if it's an ad for that sweet ass looking fox, swoopin around the globe, like i saw in the NYTimes .. maybe i'll give it a look?

    19. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      You should have kept that to yourself.

      You really should have.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      How many times have you come across a website which, in stead of giving you content, advised you to update your IE to 5.0 or higher?

      Um, never? Can you point me to a few of these? I use Firefox all the time and have NEVER encountered one. Yes, not once.

      (And yes, I'm sure there's at least one out there, but I think this is a huge urban legend that it's some pervasive problem)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    21. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      feel comfortable wearing a bunny fir coat that still drips with their blood?

      I just find it really amusing that you think that normal meat-eating people WOULD feel comfortable wearing a piece of fur dripping with blood.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    22. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 1

      Hehe, oh dear. No, I don't. However, my post certainly does make it sound that way. :)

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    23. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just find it really amusing that you think that normal meat-eating people WOULD feel comfortable wearing a piece of fur dripping with blood.

      Why not? You'll put it in your mouth and eat it, you sick fat fucks.

    24. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by linebackn · · Score: 1
      Um, never? Can you point me to a few of these? I use Firefox all the time and have NEVER encountered one. Yes, not once.

      You must not get out much on the web, especially in a corporate environment.

      There are a list of some here: Sites that Make Mozilla Sad

      And even more can be found here: Mozilla Reporter Database

      But the worst sites are on corporate Intranets or behind logins.

      At work I am expected to use Microsoft Project Server Web Access. This archaic piece of trash requires IE because it uses ActiveX. The webby app we use to manage our Outlook/Exchange profile info only works in IE. Our Exchange web access e-mail only provides a crippled interface to anything other than IE.

      Then I get this thing in the e-mail about Oracles new web site with a link to a presentation here - but don't open this in Firefox or it will crash! that only works in IE.

      I had to repeatedly e-mail certain folks when links with illegal backslashes showed up in links on the department web site. They finally fixed those but there are several apps on the site that require or claim to require IE. (What the hell: here , here, , here and the system that we now have to use to get our pay checks says here (login required) that "Internet Explorer (version 5.5 or higher) is the only supported web browser for Employee Self Service. Using any other browser may affect your ability to gain access." It mostly works but the the help system requires IE.

      Then the other day I am trying look up info on my home warranty and I find this part of their site: Aon Home Warranty

      So anyway yes they exist. Yes, real people run in to them all the time. And the Firefox community needs to do something to fight back.

    25. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Why not? You'll put it in your mouth and eat it, you sick fat fucks.

      Mmmm ... meeeaaat. I prefer cooked rather than bloody, to be honest, but I do like it medium rare. I suppose I'd eat it bloody in a pinch, though. Of course, eating bloody meat is much more of gratifying sensual experience than wearing a bloody skin.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    26. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The answer I come up with is that it is better for them to form an opinion for or against than to have no opinion at all.

    27. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by kennygraham · · Score: 0
      I use Firefox all the time and have NEVER encountered one. Yes, not once.

      Two that quickly come to mind are FEMA's registration for disaster relief and the online courses for most schools.

    28. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I didn't know bunnies had firs.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    29. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris?

    30. Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I don't see why people are getting so uptight about this.

      Because it's stupid, eltist and counter-productive. If you want to design sites that work in Firefox and don't care about supporting IE, fine - don't support IE. But there's no need to block the user if they visit in IE. Hell, what's wrong with a small but noticable banner on the front page (just the front page) informing the user that the site is best viewed in Firefox/Opera/whatever*, that it will work in IE but it won't be as pretty as it should be? You could even provide a link to a screenshot of what it's supposed to look like, so they can see what they're missing out on.

      If you just outright block a user, how many of them do you think are going to take the time and trouble to download and install an alternative just to view your site? Unless it's compelling, very few will, and no offence, but the chances of any given site being compelling are pretty damn slim.

      (* Although I had hoped that the days of the ever-present "Best viewed with..." legends were long-gone)

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  7. but explorer is needed by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Nice idea, but a lot of ignorant banks and such do not realize there is more to the world than microsoft and don't excersize compatibility in their coding. Most likely, people will be stuck witht 2 browsers eventually.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  8. Oh, lovely, it's spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    function hasIE_phoneHome(image) {
      if (document.getElementById)
        {
          var img = document.getElementById(image);
        }
      else if (document.all)
        {
          var img = document.all[image];
        }
      else if (document.layers)
        {
          var img = document.layers[image];
        }
      img.setAttribute('src','http://getunder50.com/ping .php?host='+location.host);

    }

    1. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by orkysoft · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're just collecting site - browser id pairs for statistics, because they want to know which of the participating sites have under 50% IE visitors.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I'm adding that domain to my hosts file for blocking. Assholes.

    3. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      script error
      img.setAttribute is not defined

      Netscape 4 (the document.layers conditional statement)

      good to see they know about Javascript versions and what browsers support which attributes

      a simple document.images["imagename"].src woud be better and supports everything (including WebTV aka IE3)

    4. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by truedfx · · Score: 1

      Your argument, if it were valid, would legitimise any spyware.

    5. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Define spyware. What is spyware? If it's "anything that collects any information" then all the visitor counters are also spyware. Heck, the whole web would be a huge network of spyware because at least your IP and request URL is collected in the web server log!

      Fact is, the script does not collect any personal information. All it does is collecting the host address of the site that has that script. It's entirely anymous. It does not breach privacy in any way. There is no rational reason to oppose it.

    6. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by truedfx · · Score: 1

      Either your reply doesn't concern me, or you're assuming I'm opposed to the script. I'll assume the latter. Who said I am? I'm opposed to one argument which happens to be in support of the script.

    7. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I'm in support of the script, I'm just saying that they want to collect statistics. Lots of websites collect statistics. According to your arguments, Apache logs would be spyware! HTTP request headers would be spyware!

      This script is not as much spyware as is a 1x1 image hosted on another site, or an ad banner. Those examples usually contain a query string with encoded data which might contain tracking data.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    8. Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware by truedfx · · Score: 1

      According to your arguments, Apache logs would be spyware! HTTP request headers would be spyware!

      I explained in the message you replied to that I never said or meant any such thing. Try reading, okay?

  9. not keen by icepick72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ya right, I want to explicitly drag the browser war straight into my commercial web sites. That should help business. What kind of web sites will you see with banners telling the user to switch? This is no better than the old "Designed for x Browser" buttons that were displayed in the past. In fact this is worse.

    1. Re:not keen by Crizp · · Score: 1

      The right technique to use would in my view be to code standards-based web pages without a single IE bugfix, and perhaps display a little banner on top (similar to the "we blocked a popup" notifications, no larger) with the text "Experiencing problems? See here" and a link to a page explaining why the site might look like crap when using IE.

      That's what I will do on my site, at least.

    2. Re:not keen by Crizp · · Score: 1

      However, I'm actually effectively blocking IE users since I haven't bothered to send a different header than "Content-type: application/xhtml+xml" to IE users... perhaps I should?

    3. Re:not keen by Unski · · Score: 1

      They would cut my cock off and make me eat it from a cocktail stick if I decided to use this on the commercial sites I manage*. And just trying to advocate this one to my customers would lead to some (rightly) vexed expressions as I explain that it would be better in general if I blocked the browser they use.

      For that matter I don't think any of the levels of seriousness would be tolerated by them. They've seen me use Firefox, some have commented on it, and one has adopted it as his personal browser on his laptop. That's it though. Using this tactic would make some of these people dig their heels, at the moment, there is a nice gentle, gradual curiosity thing going on across my client base. This might be preferable to these more up-front tactics.

      * OK they would just dispense with my services. Poetic license...

    4. Re:not keen by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Whilst I totally disagree with making browser specific sites today, back when "Designed for X" and "Best viewed with X" were popular they were almost essential, because no two browsers rendered anything the same if it was anything more complex than plain text.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    5. Re:not keen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and what will you do when I (who happens to be your ISP) installs it on the gateway ?

    6. Re:not keen by westlake · · Score: 1
      The right technique to use would...perhaps display a little banner on top..with the text "Experiencing problems? See here" and a link to a page explaining why the site might look like crap when using IE.

      Blogspot.com? Get a life.

      In less time than it would take to read your little banner, your target audience will have moved on to another site.

    7. Re:not keen by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Yes, you would have to be nuts to use this on a commercial website but there are LOTS of non-commercial sites out there.

      I just looked through my bookmarks and there were a good many non-commercial sites there - and I am fairly selective about what I read so there are no vanity blogs etc. in my bookmarks.

      I am not sure about "dig their heels in" response either - if people react of the existence of IE only sites by thinking "Firefox is broken" why should they not react to non-IE only sites by thinking "IE is broken".

      BTW I have come across more FF only sites recently (not many of them, just a handful, none important) than IE only sites (I think one in the last few months, and that works in FF, OPera or Konqueror if you spoof the UA).

    8. Re:not keen by Unski · · Score: 1

      It would discredit FF in the eyes of the IE users being excluded. If they are increasingly being turned away by websites, commercial or otherwise, by a page which is associating FF with the inconvenience said IE users feel, are they really going to feel warm and fuzzy about it?

      I've tried to lead by example by maintaining my Firefox dev. usage, alongside the millstone of IE, in their presence and being willing to advocate, whenever they interested. These are boundaries, for me. Some have adopted FF as a result - it was their choice and they knew they wanted to do it. They therefore took responsibility for learning the new browser. They took care of themselves and did not challenge my belief in FF, they had chosen to do this themselves.

      I suggest you invest a little more thought into this, because commercial or non-commercial, it is the wrong way to achieve a switch. I believe in the standards, I know IE does not support them adequately. I also know, tedious as it is, that with conditional IE-only CSS formatting, and the avoidance of IE-specific technologies, it is possible in real, practical terms to serve the audience. It is truly lamentable that the majority still use IE, it is changing slowly and we don't want to lose that by associating a cheap tactic like this with F/OSS.

    9. Re:not keen by Crizp · · Score: 1

      I should have clarified with "the site I'm currently coding", not my never-visited, almost-never-updated blog on Blogspot. It's an entirely different thing, and I am very aware of the stigma a blogspot.com address has. Just be glad I didn't use LiveJournal or MySpace :)

    10. Re:not keen by the_womble · · Score: 1
      It would discredit FF in the eyes of the IE users being excluded. If they are increasingly being turned away by websites, commercial or otherwise, by a page which is associating FF with the inconvenience said IE users feel, are they really going to feel warm and fuzzy about it?

      What about all the people who way they use IE because other browsers are incompatible with some web site they use? MY point is that IE only websites have boosted IE usage. IE blocking websites should therefore reduce IE usage.

      You think people will blame FF. Do you think that people faced with an IE only site blame IE or MS?

      People may not like it initially, but it will encourage people to switch. Once they switch three things will happen. Firstly, they find FF's good features. Secondly, they will want to believe that it is better (as people do not like to think they have downgraded and they adjust their beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance). Finally, having switched they are not going to bother to switch back.

      It can reasonably be regarded as a tactic that is at odds with the values of OSS. My reasons for believing it will work depend on human nature being less than ideal. Unfortunately the behaviour or people as consumers shows quite clearly that (whatever economists might think) that people are not rational about making complex choices. Its not a nice thought, but I remain convinced this will work.

    11. Re:not keen by Jetson · · Score: 1
      What kind of web sites will you see with banners telling the user to switch?

      Well, my bank used to have a banner that told me their site would not work because I was not using IE.... True to their word, their site DIDN'T work on FireFox or any of the other browsers I tried. They even put it in their FAQ because of all the customers complaining about it. Then after about a year of complaining they finally made a version that works on FF. I don't know if they do browser detection or if they simply started designing to standards (and don't care), but I'm glad they changed their ways, because I was starting to look for another bank.

    12. Re:not keen by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there are non-commercial web-sites. This may be just the thing for my hobbyist websites, where I don't have the time or the operating system to support MS's obsolete crap, yet don't want the casual visitor to get the wrong impression, e.g. that I'm a total moron and haven't even THOUGHT about another browser type visiting my page.

      I have a simple rule: I don't hack to support IE. I write the most elegant possible code assuming a universe where IE doesn't exist.

    13. Re:not keen by Unski · · Score: 1

      Well I can see your audience thanking you for that.

      Do you think that people faced with an IE only site blame IE or MS?
      No, I don't think they realise there is blame to be apportioned, as you might expect. I don't like IE. I don't think much of most IE users, and no, I don't want IE complicating my job as web developer in ten years time. It's already robbed me of time and patience, and in that sense you are truly preaching to the choir.

      This is in danger of going around in circles - I wouldn't force them, you would. Including the wikipedia link is just unnecessary - you've studied some psychology, so did I once upon a time. Would you really rather have them rationalise this by the mechanism of cognitive dissonance, post facto, or would you rather have them want to install FF because it is a good piece of software in it's own rights?

      People may not like it initially, but it will encourage people to switch.
      No, they fucking well will not like you for it. IE users are not fair-minded, quid pro quo, responsible users who would see their responsibility for shaping internet usage. They are people who wilfully shun 'techie geek stuff', the kind of people who like to bang the drum about how important their computer is to their work and that they don't need to be bogged down with techie stuff. Hence;

      'why dunt this site work IT Guy? sez i need 'Fyerfocks''
      'well yes, it requires you use this other browser.'
      'why, whats so good about it?'
      'it supports the standards. It means web developers will be able to design a site that looks good for more people, in a quicker amount of time, and it will be easier to maintain.'
      'i just need to get this pdf off the website.'
      'then go to www.mozilla.com/firefox, download it and install it on your machine.'
      'sez I can't'
      'oh yeah *I* need to do that..'
      ...... interval whilst FF installed ...
      'all this bollocks just to get my pdf.'
      'well to be fair you are now in possession of a browser which supports nearly all of css2 and a little bit of css3, and it fully supports the ems unit, and partially transperant png's. Honestly user, it is the shizzle, I assure you.'
      'why wouldnt it work in internet explorer though?'
      * pained expression on IT Guys face, as he knows he has already over-extended himself into this FF advocacy lark *
      'well, I guess the site's owners thought you should use a better browser.'
      'but did I have to?'
      * furrowed brow, slight dampness of forehead in IT Guy *
      'well, no. You didn't have to, but the site's owners wanted you to use it.'
      'but didn't you used to say any good website will support as many browsers as it can?'
      'I err, still think that actually.'
      'so I didn't have to install 'fyerfocks'?'
      'well, yes you did because that site needed it, but no you didn't, 'cos that site didn't need to make you use it.'
      'aw thats shit that is; all this fuckaround for a pdf.' (martyrdom mode engaged)

      ......three or four weeks later........

      'don't bother with that site, they make you get this 'fyerfocks' thing'
      'whats that?'
      'i had to get it to get the pdf.'
      'is it a virus?'
      'dunno. IT Guy said I had no choice.'

      ....user then clicks on the Blue E, as s/he always did, 'cos the Blue E is the internet. User is not now an FF user, nor an FF advocate.

  10. Completely different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WaSP's campaign was simply to get people to upgrade to browsers with better standards support. They didn't care if it was IE6, Firefox, Opera, Safari or whatever, as long as it wasn't completely broken when it came to standards. Some would argue IE6 is now relatively completely broken when compared to other browsers, but this project's goal is not to get people using any better browser but Firefox.

  11. Please, please don't! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it. There are already the first trojans aiming for FF, and I'm not sure if I want them to become more.

    Also, it's not really a program I can support. Inform those that don't know about their options, but don't get on their nerves. Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?

    And how annoying this is?

    And how it doesn't want you to make IE your standard browser even MORE?

    Why would you think it makes someone use FF instead of IE if you keep bugging him just the same way IE pesters you?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Please, please don't! by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful
      As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it.
      By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:Please, please don't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Hackers attack IIS because they hate Microsoft. It has nothing to do with which has more holes. In the "31137 h4x0r" (non-)culture, it is very fashionable to believe that "M$ is teh evil." You get a lot of "IRC creed" among all the un-socialized 12-year-olds when you go after "Mickey$oft."

    3. Re:Please, please don't! by thefogger · · Score: 1

      Do you have any proof that hackers attack IIS more? I was under the impression that recent versions of IIS have a far better track record than apache, security wise.

      --


      Um... I didn't do it!
    4. Re:Please, please don't! by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Actually there was a study linked here that showed that Apache-based sites are hacked more than IIS-based ones.

      AFAIK, there's never been any evidence that IIS servers are "attacked more", unless you consider a couple automated wormes that attacked everything.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:Please, please don't! by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      You realise that FireFox has the exact same warning message, right?

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    6. Re:Please, please don't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that so many of the hackers have come out saying that they do it because it is sooo easy, and yet, people like you say otherwise? The software writers who do this, do not care one iota about cred with IRC. They do it for the sport. Why? Because MS writes sloppy code and then says that they are secure. There is money to be made on this; look at all the spam/anti-spam or virus/anti-virus that exists. Plain and simple, the vast The writers do the code and then leave it laying around for SKs (like you self) to pick up. But since you are not able to do anything BUT what they code for you, then you are stuck with it.

    7. Re:Please, please don't! by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are any number of possible reasons for hackers attacking IIS more than Apache:

      1) IIS only runs on Windows, and so the host is definitely Windows, and so your pre-packaged exploit has a greater chance of running if you manage to crak the server (not so a *nix, which you don't have a 'spolit for)
      2) *nix admins are more diligent/security aware than Windows ones
      3) the attackers do it because they hate M$
      4) IIS is a softer target than Apache (definitely true historically, not so much so now)
      5) Apache doesn't actually host significantly many more sites than IIS, certainly not so many that IIS-hosted sites are hard to find

      I could go on, but you get the idea. The basic premise is that Apache is just harder enough to crack than IIS that it simply isn't worth the bother; there are plenty enough IIS sites to crack as it is. These people mostly aren't in it for the challenge, they're just using prepackaged scripts they've downloaded from a darknet IRC channel somewhere and sent off indiscriminately looking for a victim.

      As Firefox (and Linux for that matter) gains market share and becomes more popular, it will be more worthwhile trying to create exploits for it. Sure, most of these will be social-engineering ones rather than true remote exploits, but so what? It makes little difference to the end user who's tricked into installing an extension that zombies their machine.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    8. Re:Please, please don't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because MS writes sloppy code and then says that they are secure.

      That might have been the case in the past, but it is not true whatsoever with IIS 6.

    9. Re:Please, please don't! by causality · · Score: 1
      As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it. There are already the first trojans aiming for FF, and I'm not sure if I want them to become more.

      We really need to make a document about these lines of "reasoning" in the style of the FUSSP (Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem) and arguments like "well it's only attacked because it's popular" should be one of the check boxes. Then when someone regurgitates this yet again, you can point them towards that section of the document with that particular box checked off. Sure, it might not change anything with regard to the need for new ideas, but it sure would make me feel better.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. Re:Please, please don't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware, of course, that FF, Netscape, and every other browser I've seen does the same thing.

    11. Re:Please, please don't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that so many of the hackers have come out saying that they do it because it is sooo easy, and yet, people like you say otherwise?

      They say it is easy because it boosts their giant fragile egos. If they go on IRC and say that hacking IIS was the most difficult thing they ever did, or how they had to spend day and night working on it while missing SIX whole star trek re-runs, it would not make them look "l33t." If, instead, they lie and say that it was the easiest thing they did they'll quickly be accepted as having "m4d skillz" because it fits in with the "M$ makes teh shit wares" group-think.

    12. Re:Please, please don't! by gregorio · · Score: 1
      My comment has nothing do to with "measuring security", so enough with the negative "this has nothing to do with security" comments about quoting defacing statistics.

      You said:
      By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more.
      I say: You are WRONG.

      From Zone-h.org:
      324 single IP
      1896 mass defacements
      Linux (81.4%)
      Win 2003 (9.3%)
      FreeBSD (4.1%)
      Win 2000 (3.8%)
      Unknown (0.5%)
      SolarisSunOS (0.4%)
      MacOSX (0.4%)
      Win NT9x (0.0%)
      Whatever the most secure server might be, Apache is most likely (as Zone-h only shows the O.S.) the current hacker target. It's an statistical fact, not a conclusion.
  12. Why not just keep crashing IE? by caluml · · Score: 1

    No, it's not the same behaviour as Microsoft uses. Microsoft are a monopoly with billions behind them.
    Anyway, my thought was, wouldn't it be better to just include all the common code in you page that crashes IE? If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough.
    Mind you, I have a friend (who used to be a Unix admin), and when I advised his girlfriend to use Firefox, he said, No, no point. Not sure what the motto is there.

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
    1. Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? by carlislematthew · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank goodness that Google is not a monopoly with billions behind them.

    2. Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      And how exactly are they supposed to know that switching browsers will keep the window from crashing?

      --

      Technoli
    3. Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 1

      That will only work if your website is the only one of its kind. Otherwise, it won't be "My browser crashes whenever I visit buyWidgets.com. I'll switch to Firefox." Instead, it will be "My browser crashes whenever I visit buyWidgets.com. I'll switch to buyGizmos.com."

      --
      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
    4. Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Cause intentionally crashing another person's browser is unethical. How do you know that this person didn't spend an hour writing an important letter via webmail and lost their work because they went to your website? Quite apart from gaining a reputation of a bully, with the obvious consequences, once you do bad things you just plainly stop being the good guy.

      Sorry man, but that was a really stupid idea.

    5. Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      So don't make it crash all of the time. Make it serve up the code that crashes the browser every 100th request. A customer will usually try to return to a site once after their web browser has crashed, and if it doesn't happen every time then they will not blame the site. If enough places do this, then people will start to associate IE with crashing. Once they switch to FireFox, the problem goes away (although it's actually very easy to crash FireFox, just put a hundred or so iframes in a page. I doubt many people would though).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. No, it isn't by njdj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are plenty of banks whose websites conform to W3C standards, and which consequently are usable with Firefox. I don't have any problem with my on-line banking (with Firefox, of course). Maybe you should change to a better bank? If your bank is backward in the way you describe, it probably has other problems which are not yet apparent to you.

    1. Re:No, it isn't by carlislematthew · · Score: 1
      Washington Mutual just "upgraded" their online system. They changed some, not all, of the pages to ASP.NET from ASP. The ones they upgraded (bill pay was one) are broken in Firefox - they look like crap. All I had to do to find this was log in, pay a bill, and hit "submit". This is something that I would have expected they test...

      Anyway, I emailed them to bitch about it. I imagine that others did too, as the site is currently down.

      My point is that even WaMu (the "better bank" in many regards) still has shitty testing and compatibility issues.

    2. Re:No, it isn't by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      So change your bank. When you do this tell your branch manager why you did so. He then has to file a report for his superior explaining why he lost a customer. Losing customers is not something that happens to banks very often, and they tend to have a strict procedure in place that must be followed whenever they do. It is likely to need a very small number of people (around 100) to do this before the person in charge of the redesign loses their job.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:No, it isn't by carlislematthew · · Score: 1

      I'm running out of banks. I already left US Bank (bastards) and Wells Fargo (fuckers) for worse reasons..

  14. Your Mission: Get Under 50 by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    this project's goal is not to get people using any better browser but Firefox.

    O rly? "Your Mission: Get Under 50" in the article describes a stats page that tracks sites that have fewer than 50% page views from Microsoft Internet Explorer. The end is less IE; the means is more Firefox. If the goal were to advocate Firefox to replace Opera or Safari or Konqueror, the mission would be "Get Over 50".

    1. Re:Your Mission: Get Under 50 by westlake · · Score: 1
      Your Mission: Get Under 50" in the article describes a stats page that tracks sites that have fewer than 50% page views from Microsoft Internet Explorer.

      and of course it doesn't matter if the browser-neutral or IE oriented site gets 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 more hits.

  15. Shit, I just did it for the cause! by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Still need Firefox yourself?
    Grab it here: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]

    1. You need a Google AdSense account to make referral money for each user switched. If you don't already have an account, click this button to sign-up: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]

    Then he goes below down to wash his hands clean by explaining that Google won't go bankrupt from this campaign, so it's perfectly ok to be retarded and lock out 80% of your visitors.

    Oh and by the way this "script" shows the "you use IE" message on many builds of the original Mozilla Suite. Amateur.

    1. Re:Shit, I just did it for the cause! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Firefox/Adblock combo killed the [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG] button :)

  16. Firefox Deterrent by gihan_ripper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh? This is the same type of bull that makes me hate IE only websites. At least most IE-only problems can be attributed to stupidity instead of malice. If someone tried to deliberately hinder my access to their site because I use Firefox, I'd likely never visit the site again.

    Worryingly, the wording of this site makes it sound as though Google is affiliated with ExplorerDestroyer, which is very far from the truth. In fact, I imagine that Google would be worried by this page as it detracts from their "do not evil" ethos.

    --
    Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
    1. Re:Firefox Deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      screw google! Goole's stupid gmail is also a "only this and this browser" site! This damn gmail works actually ok with konqueror etc...
      Fuck "IE only sites" and fuck "ie/mozilla only" sites too!

    2. Re:Firefox Deterrent by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      Huh? This is the same type of bull that makes me hate IE only websites. At least most IE-only problems can be attributed to stupidity instead of malice. If someone tried to deliberately hinder my access to their site because I use Firefox, I'd likely never visit the site again.

      Just curious ... but would this be more palatable if the site were to advocate having your pages determine if IE were visiting your site, then use a special stylesheet that was crafted to make rendering look just slightly borked (on IE)? I know Microsoft tried this approach on their MSN sites ... making the site look slightly off if you used Opera7, so people assumed Opera7 had buggy rendering.

      I'm not advocating that, but the subtle approach ("hey, this site does look so good in IE, I'll switch to Firefox") sometimes has different effects than a blatant "you are running IE, switch to Firefox" message.

    3. Re:Firefox Deterrent by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you are relatively intelligent. This is people taking matters into their own hands. People are too stupid to do what they consider the right thing, so they creat a false perception to induce them to do the right thing. The more times you say IE is broke, the more broke people will think it is. I don't agree with the tactic, but it might work on Joe Average. The problem I see is this is means to an end type stuff. The enemies of a certain way of thinking are using every low down, dirty underhanded tactic to get their way. The response is to do exactly the same. The problem with a mud throwing contest is that everyone just ends up covered in mud. The solution is not throwing more mud, it's getting the barsteds who first cheated to play fair again. Exactly the same problem plagues politics.

    4. Re:Firefox Deterrent by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Huh? This is the same type of bull that makes me hate IE only websites. At least most IE-only problems can be attributed to stupidity instead of malice. If someone tried to deliberately hinder my access to their site because I use Firefox, I'd likely never visit the site again."

      Same. I'd feel like they're trying to push their over-zealous point of view too far. However, I'd look at it a bit differently if they suggested more than one alternative. If they suggested FireFox or Opera, that would be a start. It'd feel less like fanboy'ism and more like "get off the fucking IE".

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Firefox Deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just curious ... but would this be more palatable if the site were to advocate having your pages determine if IE were visiting your site, then use a special stylesheet that was crafted to make rendering look just slightly borked (on IE)? I know Microsoft tried this approach on their MSN sites ... making the site look slightly off if you used Opera7, so people assumed Opera7 had buggy rendering."

      NO it is not more palatable. It is the type of shit we should all be fighting against, if you are going to fight dirty then you better cut out all your slamming of MS and others as you are no better then them.

  17. The Browser Wars 2.0 by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I for one expect that the competition between IE and the Google-backed FF is only going to increase in the months to come. I am torn. I can't help but approve of this, simply because it will diminish the market share of IE further. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, being harassed leads to resistance; the project might backfire.

    Note: my anti-IE bias is based soley on being a web developer. MS has been fighting the interweb from day one, and IE is all the proof you'll ever need of this.

    Related: a few days ago, my XP Home box started acting very strange: whenever I typed anything into a form in FF, it crashed. IE, Opera both remained fine. Malware? ID10T? ...or is Microsoft "fixing" things again?

    --
    barack to the future?
    1. Re:The Browser Wars 2.0 by Unski · · Score: 1

      Could it be within the bounds of reality that FF had the bug? I like it, I use it on my home machine, just seems disingenuous to say it's Microsoft 'fixing things' is all, esp. given IE/Opera work fine in your scenario. Maybe corrupted user prefs in your user directory? Could try backing up bookmarks, uninstalling FF, deleting your user FF directory and reinstalling.

      Other, better FF users than me might well have some light to shed on this......

    2. Re:The Browser Wars 2.0 by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      uh, maybe firefox crashed. It happens.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    3. Re:The Browser Wars 2.0 by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      Of course the bug may be in FF itself. But I didn't upgrade anything, install anything, or change anything. In my experience, such *phantom* bugs are usually the result of *something else* upgrading my system and changing things.

      Just tossing it out there. Guess it was just me...

      --
      barack to the future?
    4. Re:The Browser Wars 2.0 by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      well I've had FF crash a few times. It's nothing drastic or enough to make me stop using it. I doubt a windows update had anything to do with firefox. I have Opera, IE, and Firefox working on my comps also. I use Firefox mainly on one, and use both IE and Opera on the other. I had used mostly IE until recently.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  18. Only bank in town? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should change to a better bank?

    Do you mean "Maybe you should change to a better town?" I lived in Terre Haute from 1999 to 2003, and the only bank in town was Terre Haute First Financial. And for several years, First Financial's web site worked only in IE and in Netscape 4.x.

    1. Re:Only bank in town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems rather odd that a town with a major state university would only have one bank. Just saying.

    2. Re:Only bank in town? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      You can use any bank in the world. Especially with online banking, where your bank's physical offices are doesn't matter in the slightest.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  19. Baad Idea by pardasaniman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What happens when microsoft retaliates? That would be bad.

    All the websites made by frontpage, and whatever servers running IIS, suddenly boot firefox..

    seriously, this is a terrible idea. Let's not stoop to their level!

    Also, Is it possible some users would think it's some kind of spyware? Users that were advised not to install stuff just because a website asks them too?

    How about older opera users who identify as internet explorer?

    1. Re:Baad Idea by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft retaliates? They started this and nearly killed Mozilla with it. This is Mozilla's retaliation against Microsoft using Microsoft's tactics.

    2. Re:Baad Idea by wang33 · · Score: 1

      How about older opera users who identify as internet explorer? I tried this. It didn't bring the splash screen up for me under opera even when id'ed as IE.

      --
      PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
    3. Re:Baad Idea by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      If Microsoft do it, then it's abuse of a monopoly position and they will get huge amounts of negative press and potential lawsuits. If FireFox does it, then it's the plucky underdog fighting to survive.

      Don't you just love spin when it works in in your favour?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Baad Idea by idlake · · Score: 1

      That's not spin, that's the truth.

      With its market share and history, Microsoft simply cannot do what smaller companies and open source projects can do both legally and ethically.

      Besides, it's not like Apache refuses to serve pages to IE.

  20. Imperialists! by Better.Safe.Than.Sor · · Score: 1

    ". . . as a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program." . . . unless you're in Canada and ineligible for this referral program. C'mon Google, your regular adsense program works here howza about this one?

    --
    It's all history, man. -anon
  21. Turn off the "keep bugging me" checkbox by tepples · · Score: 1

    Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?

    I just turn off the "keep bugging me" checkbox. In IE 6, you can go Tools > Internet Options > Programs > Uncheck "Internet Explorer should check...".

    1. Re:Turn off the "keep bugging me" checkbox by TheSloth2001ca · · Score: 1

      of course FF does the exact same thing

      --
      Just another crappy blog
  22. Shouldn't they follow their own rulez?!?! by jedimaud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm.....I surprised they don't follow their own rules, I could view the site perfectly in ie without being asked to switch to firefox.

    1. Re:Shouldn't they follow their own rulez?!?! by Elendur · · Score: 1

      The whole site is about switching to Firefox. Why would they block IE users? The message is already there.

  23. Blue e == Teh Intarweb by tepples · · Score: 1

    If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough

    ...not to go back to "those sites that crash the Internet" anymore. Some people either don't know or could care less (that is, could barely care less) about the existence of other web browser software.

  24. So stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so stupid, one should respect everybody's choice. Why don't IE or Opera user do the same when Firefox is detected to ban Firefox? Firefox has had a number of security issues too. It's not much better than IE.

  25. You missed an important point by njdj · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ..another browser monoculture.

    Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message (unless browser options are set to lie about its identity, which is probably not a smart thing to do anyway). This initiative is not intended to lead to a browser monoculture.

    Having said that, I would have preferred to see a script which detects grossly non-standard behavior, rather than a specific browser. I'd have no problem with MSIE being dominant if it respected agreed W3C standards.

    1. Re:You missed an important point by kanweg · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be enough for me, if the tools MS provides creates non-standard web pages (which their IE will display correctly), still leaving W3C compliant browsers in the cold.

      Web browsers should be able to diss out a 1 minute time-out for non-compliant web sites. To get a significant uptime, that would force creators to make the website compliant.

      Bert

    2. Re:You missed an important point by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1
      --"another browser monoculture."

      -Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message

      So what, more important is that the site only recommends one browser. Of course non-IE visitors don't see the message since the message is aimed at IE browser users. I think he is probably right; that this site is promoting a mono-culture, deliberately or not (which is another question). Perhaps you should lay-off the arrogant and unwarranted (and dare I say it : immature) assertions in future.

    3. Re:You missed an important point by lRem · · Score: 1

      So you'll be perfectly happy when next version of IE gets even more integrated into Vista, just because it respects W3C standards. And, as I know from some beta testers, it really does.

      --
      Always put off dealing with time-wasting morons. If you would like to know how... I'll get back to you
    4. Re:You missed an important point by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      If it follows their standard for HTML, it sure doesn't for CSS. Getting a page to look the same in Opera/Firefox and IE7 was as much a challenge as if I substituted IE6 for IE7. The only difference I've noted is the interface, which I like a lot for its minimalism, and the antialiasing it applies to everything, which makes reading hard but everything else look pretty nice.

      Unless things have changed in the past few months, IE7 is not standards compliant.

    5. Re:You missed an important point by lRem · · Score: 1

      Unless things have changed in the past few months, IE7 is not standards compliant.
      AFAIK they could have changed. Friend has submitted a bug report about a particular site that had issues with broken CSS support and in the next release it got fixed. If this was not an isolated case, IE7 should be already as standards compliant, as the others are.

      --
      Always put off dealing with time-wasting morons. If you would like to know how... I'll get back to you
    6. Re:You missed an important point by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Ummm....how exactly was that immature? He said why he didn't think it would promote a monoculture. Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't make his comment unwarranted, arrogant or immature. In-fact, those are the things I thought about your post when I read that sentence. Just a hint for the future, don't throw around accusations when they make no sense.

  26. gg hypocrits; nextmap by Wuhao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What the fuck? You're talking about crippling consumer choice to force your ideas on them and make money for yourself? Are you sure you don't WORK at Microsoft?

  27. Seach engine crawlers by obli · · Score: 1

    Seach engine crawlers will pick up the huge banner and your cached version will look like shit despite that nicfty code that's supposed to limit it to IE. I'm just saying...

  28. Dragon NaturallySpeaking by Nastajus · · Score: 1

    Software that allows users to controlled the computer by voice only works fluidly with Internet Explorer. Those users would have difficulty.

    1. Re:Dragon NaturallySpeaking by crossconnects · · Score: 1

      is there any reasonably good open source voice recognition software for linux?

      --
      no big sig
    2. Re:Dragon NaturallySpeaking by sjwest · · Score: 1

      The area of 'accessible websites' is frought with morons who ignore each others advice. The spreadfirefox team got hacked so many times that I gave up on promoting them or this debate.

      Opera has a voice thing

      I always write xhtml standard pages one of which will terminate ie with an eror message in testing. That is not my problem.

    3. Re:Dragon NaturallySpeaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And until it is available for Vista/IE7, you'll be buggered with the new OS. What do you do? Ask/tell the supplier to update to the new OS. Ask/tell them to do the same with FF.

    4. Re:Dragon NaturallySpeaking by Nastajus · · Score: 1

      no. i'm sure not. i haven't heard anything else.

  29. SafeSearch is off! by linvir · · Score: 1

    Check out the Google image link on that page. Looks like someone's turned SafeSearch off... ew!

  30. Oh lovely, site owners can opt out by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    And not only that, but web site owners can also opt out of this statistics collection. From the "Your Mission: Get Under 50" sidebar in The Article:

    Here's how it works: if you want to you can turn on code in those scripts that will pass stats to our site about the percentage of IE users who visit.
  31. Not that i personally approve by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    But sometimes you do what you have too in order to fight the 500lb gorillas in the world.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  32. To obstructing. by guice · · Score: 1

    I'd go along with the site if it was a simple ad like Google's site, but it's not. It's a giant obstructing window preveting the user from acessing your site. The very same thing that makes me dispise IE only sites; "You must use IE 5.5 or greater to view this site." Ugh!

  33. Annoying by danimrich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is annoying for those who cannot switch browsers for one reason or the other. In my opinion, web developers should aim to make their sites usable for as many different browsers as is reasonably possible. Including Internet Explorer, Lynx, mobile phones and old Netscape versions. Usable does not imply that the site needs to look pretty in that browser, but people should be able to access the (text) content.

    Your users will have a reason why they use a particular browser, and often it's not because they're too lazy/dumb to install a "better" one.

    --
    where's all that Karma?
    1. Re:Annoying by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Your users will have a reason why they use a particular browser, and often it's not because they're too lazy/dumb to install a "better" one.

      Exactly. Apart from people who have to use IE at work, those of us who travel to countries where using your own computer is not an option (for lack of Wi-Fi access) are often forced to use internet cafes (where IE is almost always the only option).

      This campaign is about as intelligent as the Spread Firefox campaign was in the beginning, with websites often telling me to stop using my insecure browser and use Firefox (I'm using Opera, which has been more secure than Firefox over the last couple of years).
    2. Re:Annoying by Stormwatch · · Score: 1
      In my opinion, web developers should aim to make their sites usable for as many different browsers as is reasonably possible.
      Or just get the "amen" from W3C 's validators, so any misbehaving is the browser's fault.
      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    3. Re:Annoying by John+Courtland · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must not realize how much of a son of a bitch it is to make something work in IE along with everything else. In a very short amount of time I can have a nice looking site with proper nav bar, menus, and content working on FireFox, Opera, Safari, Lynx, Links, and it will even degrade properly in Netscape 6... but then if I were to open it in IE, everything is hosed.

      I have a huge project I'm working on right now to upgrade my company's website design and functionality, and I would be lying if I said refactoring proper valid HTML into some mess of shit to get IE to render it properly wasn't taking up 25-30% of our development time. And by development time, I'm including not only totally new HTML/JSP pages, but new backend Java, new Javascript and new SQL tables, procedures, views and a new SQL database. Thirty percent. We cannot use any select controls because Microsoft managed to design IE in such a way that the select bar, out of all the controls on the page, is the lucky control to get its own HWND. This somehow precludes it from obeying z-ordering. So I had to write some javascript to emulate that behaviour. Let that sink in. I had to basically emulate a simple HTML form control because IE was designed by what I can only presume are retards.

      So your opinion about having web developers "aim to make their sites usable for as many different browsers as is reasonably possible", to me, is poorly thought out. Instead of forcing hordes of web developers to pour hundreds of extra hours into basically developing shit, why can't Microsoft write a browser that simply TRIES to not suck? Cut the infection off at the source instead of trying to force everyone else to deal with it. It doesn't even need to be too much better, but all these hacks are the epitome of poor design and they certainly don't promote best practices. What happens to my hacks when IE7 comes out? Am I going to have to refactor my fucking code? I should send a goddamn bill to Microsoft for the fucking coronary I'm going to experience from being so pissed at their incompetence. Sorry, I got a little hot headed there. Goddamnit I'm tired of IE.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    4. Re:Annoying by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      W3C Validation, unfortunately, doesn't mean that your website is usable, that its markup has only one correct interpretation that looks good, or that it works well given a different set of user defaults than you expect.

      I don't remember the exact details, but IE, Opera and Firefox differ in the way they handle rendering of UL elements, such that they look the same by default but some of them acheive this by setting the default to positive padding and zero margins and others by positive margins and zero padding. If you set one of the two quantities you might produce something that renders differently in different browsers despite that there's nothing wrong with your CSS (in that it will validate, and it's doing something pretty reasonable) and that all the browsers are acting according to the W3C standards. It's just that there are undefined areas in the standards. Sometimes I see this artifact while browsing the web (or at least it looks like it; I don't usually bother to check the source) and think, "Ah, some webmaster only tested in IE or Opera.

      Who is responsible for covering such a gap? The W3C shouldn't go around specifying the CSS defaults for every type of HTML element, and the browser makers aren't about to get together and agree on this kind of stuff (although they usually try to set their defaults so that existing pages look good). Users, for the most part, don't want to care. So it is up to webmasters to test their code on the common browsers. (On the other hand, this is not as easy as it sounds sometimes. If you develop a web page on GNU/Linux it's not always easy to find a computer running IE to test against. I once had a small website up for my running club that I tested under FF, Opera and Konq and looked great; out on a run one of the guys mentioned that the site only had one page. Apparently IE quashed the entire navigation sidebar and I didn't even know).

    5. Re:Annoying by danimrich · · Score: 1

      Admittedly I am seeing this from a user-biased perspective. I didn't think that it would take such a lot of work to make a Firefox-compatible site usable in Internet Explorer and I applaud you for doing it that way and not the other way round.

      We all know that IE is crap and that there are far better browsers around. But we all sometimes encounter situations where we can only use Internet Explorer-be it on some company's locked-down computers, somewhere in an internet cafe or on some old machine whose modem connection means that downloading Firefox would take hours (and we didn't think of bringing a CD-ROM). And we would get royally pissed off at a website that would tell us to download Firefox because it wouldn't work with any other browser.

      In my argument, which you criticised as being poorly thought out, I did distinguish between having a site that is usable and having a site that is usable and looks pretty. I don't know about the nature of the site that you are designing, but it looks as if you need to make it look pretty in IE as well. Now, if IE had only a small percentage of users you maybe wouldn't want to go all the way to make the site look pretty in IE, but you'd still want it to be usable.

      If you just put up the this-site-looks-better-in-firefox boiler plate, you're essentially doing what people have been doing for years. If you wanted to use the get-Firefox-or-piss-off boiler plate you'd need to have a site that absolutely doesn't work with IE at all, everything else would be rather dumb. The fact that you are developing the site for IE as well (instead of trying to switch people to Firefox) shows (in my opinion) that you (or our boss) are caring about the IE users, whereas "Explorer Destroyer" specifically advocates that people don't care about them and lock them out or annoy them. Thus, I think your story supports my argument critical of "Explorer Destroyer" in some way.

      --
      where's all that Karma?
  34. Google Toolbar? by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 1

    What a horrible way to introduce people to firefox! As for me, Google's toolbar comes in handy when I'm forced to use IE, But firefox's google toolbar seems...weak.

    --
    "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
  35. Using it by erbbysam · · Score: 1

    I've been using this at "level 2" for a month now and nobody has complained so far... Nor have I got any money through the referral program that google has but my website doesn't get that much IE traffic to begin with. When you open my website up in IE you get a banner across the top telling you to get firefox. the website itself is still functional but you will always have that banner if you're viewing it in IE. Here are my stats: since the start of this year: 52.3 % firefox 38.7 % IE last year: 45.1 % IE 44.7 % Firefox my website is targeted towards the more techically capable but I'm proud that firefox is now the dominate browser.

    1. Re:Using it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your web site is crappy anyway. Who would complain to be banned?

    2. Re:Using it by RonnyJ · · Score: 1
      How can you tell whether it's successful though?

      1) Are visitors using IE switching to Firefox?

      or

      2) Are visitors using IE annoyed with your use of the banner and not coming back?

      Both of these options will show a rise in Firefox (percentage wise) and a decrease in IE (percentage wise and absolute figures).

    3. Re:Using it by erbbysam · · Score: 1

      honestly, I'm not sure I do know that there are alot of people that I have talked to who didn't know what firefox was, so I think, if anything, it can help spread awareness. I will admit that it is a bit annoying to have that on top of every page but I think that you should be using firefox... It won't show up in other browsers besides IE so if your using Opera it shouldn't be there.

    4. Re:Using it by erbbysam · · Score: 1

      you wouldn't be banned... just a banner at the top of the page coward.

    5. Re:Using it by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I like the biased poll: "Are you STILL using IE???"

  36. Better approach to a bad idea by eddan · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is definately not the way to attract new users to FF. However, if you want to do it, using a IE infobar is way cooler.

    1. Re:Better approach to a bad idea by Unski · · Score: 1

      I still wouldn't use it, but, WOW! So authentic-looking, makes me wonder what people less scrupulous than the FF advocates could do with that CSS, some Javascript and a complete lack of morals..

      If I were to do it, I would definitely prefer this way. Many IE users would think this natural, and just click, and do what it says. Amazing.

  37. IE is obsolete! by linebackn · · Score: 1

    Come on people, IE is obsolete (not to mention evil). It needs to be left in the digital dust where it belongs. There is really no good reason to continue developing for that ancient archaic bug infested dll murdering browser.

    Sure too many people are still using it. But if 90% of the world were still running Netscape 2.0 just because they didn't know any better, would you REALLY want to continue designing for that or just tell people that they need to get off their lazy butts and upgrade already?

    IE is holding back the web and we need to take action!

    1. Re:IE is obsolete! by thomthom · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work in the corporate world. Majority rules.

  38. uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of behaviour which makes me hate firefox.

  39. no big deal by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think Score:5 posters comparing it to the tactics of Dr. Microsoft forget that this feature is non-obligatory and you need to spend actual time inserting it into your webpage.

    As for idea itself, I agree, it is too aggressive.

    It would be better if someone will come up with the idea of how during every IE crash instead of "bug report wizard" (did they hire me for that?) some "buy firefox wizard" would popup.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:no big deal by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, FireFox is free so "buy firefox" wouldn't fly. How about this: Clippy pops up and says, "It looks like your Internet Explorer has crashed. Would you like me to install FireFox instead?"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:no big deal by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Yes. But how?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:no big deal by radish · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but as I see Firefox crash many times more often than IE should the same hold? Should the Firefox "quality agent" advise me to try Opera?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:no big deal by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Year old statistics of crashes indeed shows that in 2005 (date of the article, crash collection started as early in July 2004) indeed showed that Firefox crashed more often than IE (see Figure 1, need to devide bottom % by top %).

      The data cited is definitely outdated since there were releases of analyzed soft after that.

      Firefox 1.5.0.2 crashes very rarely on me and I am happy with it.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  40. AdSense Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need Google AdSense for this, and this website is in violation of the terms and conditions for AdSense:

    https://www.google.com/adsense/policies:

    """
    Incentives
    Web pages may not include incentives of any kind for users to click on
    ads. This includes encouraging users to click on the ads or to visit the
    advertisers' sites as well as drawing any undue attention to the ads.
    For example, your site cannot contain phrases such as "click here,"
    "support us," "visit these links," or other similar language that could
    apply to any ad, regardless of content. These activities are strictly
    prohibited in order to avoid potential inflation of advertiser costs. In
    addition, publishers may not bring unnatural attention to sites
    displaying ads or referral buttons through unsolicited mass emails or
    unwanted advertisements on third-party websites. Publishers are also not
    permitted to use deceptive or unnatural means to draw attention to or
    incite clicks on referral buttons.
    """

    So to say "Click here to get Firefox" doesn't seem allowed. Strange, considering that Google is providing sponsorship for this? Or am I just understanding the terms incorrectly?

  41. Is this easy by Life700MB · · Score: 3, Informative


    As simple as this:

    <!--[if IE]>
    ...your firefox referral goes here...
    <![endif]-->

    To get a referral just talk to google.


    --
    Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

    1. Re:Is this easy by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doesn't seem to work for me; it winds up popping up inside Mozilla.

    2. Re:Is this easy by ultranova · · Score: 1, Informative

      As simple as this:

      <!--[if IE]>
      ...your firefox referral goes here...
      <![endif]-->

      Except that, since browsers ignore tags they don't know, the Firefox referral is going to pop up in every non-IE browser on the planet. After all, from the browsers point of view, you've just included some unknown tags around the text, presumably to apply some "fancy" formatting to it; since it doesn't know what you're trying to do, it just ignores the tags and shows the text as-is.

      Now, if there was some tag like <IEonly text="your Firefox referral here"/>, that would work, since the text would be an attribute of the unkown tag. But simply adding nonsense tags around a piece of text is not going to make it disappear from browsers that don't know the tags.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Is this easy by ultranova · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hups ! I just realized that the code is inside a HTML comment tag, which should indeed be hidden in non-IE browsers. That teaches me to post before reading :(. Sorry.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Is this easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, <!-- is the beginning of an HTML comment, and --> is the end of one.  IE sees the comment, then sees the conditional code and knows to include it (if it matches the right version).  Other browsers simply see it as an HTML comment and don't show it.

    5. Re:Is this easy by Squalish · · Score: 1

      Mod up, the AC is correct.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    6. Re:Is this easy by Firehed · · Score: 1
      This code worked perfectly well for me, not showing in Fx but showing in IE (I've not tested any other browsers; feel free to swipe and modify as you feel fit):
      <!--[if IE]>
      <div class='message'>
      <h1>It appears you are using the Internet Explorer web browser...</h1>
      <p>
      <a href='http://www.mozilla.com/firefox'><img src='get.gif' alt='Get Firefox!'/></a>

      This site relies heavily on web standards and unfortunately Internet Explorer does not yet fully support web standards. Therefore your browser may not display this website correctly. We recommend that you download and try out a standards compliant browser such as Mozilla Firefox.
      </p>
      </div>
      <![endif]-->
      Of course the lameness filter made me kill the indenting, but oh well, it still works fine. Which reminds me... need to add this one to my blog, as it really does get heavily f*cked up in IE.
      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    7. Re:Is this easy by Firehed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well go figure. As soon as I put my "Switch to Fx" code at the page, it starts rendering correctly in IE. I had no idea it was that sensitive, but apparently threatening browsers makes them work better.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:Is this easy by a.d.trick · · Score: 1

      IIRC, according to the actual specs, <! is actually the start and > is the end. the --'s specify the beginning and the end of individual lines. That's why the comment <!-- Hello World -- How are you doing --> is invalid and will cause you problems, at least with the 'good' browsers. This:

      <!
      --Hello World--
      --How are you doing--
      >

      Is proper syntax also (however, I think IE is confused and would probably bork that up.

    9. Re:Is this easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of the method my brother
      uses to fix his TV.

    10. Re:Is this easy by sartin · · Score: 1
      IIRC, according to the actual specs, <! is actually the start and > is the end.

      You do not recall correctly. According to the HTML 4.0 Specification, the <! is the SGML markup declaration open delimiter and the -- is the comment open delimiter and White space is not permitted between them.

  42. Stupid, stupid... by holiggan · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is the kind of zealotism that each day drives me farther from Firefox and more into the arms of Opera...

    I've been using Opera for a long while but lately I've given Firefox a try... It's nice and all, but Opera has some neat details that Firefox lacks. A very simple and frivolous example: I can move my tabs from the top to any other the side! Yeah! Oh, Firefox has an extension for it? Is it the one that breaks with every new Firefox version? You get my drift...

    Anyways, I see less and less advantages in Firefox when compared to Opera. So Firefox is opensource... well, I couldn't care less. It's the same if someone said "hey, don't drink Coke, drink Shomke, because we know the recipy and we can all change it!". I don't give a flying rat's ass about code and source code, I, as a end user, just want things to work a certain way. And Opera does work that way, and does let me change things around out of the box. In Firefox, we need a stupid "extensions" just to clip a toenail in the interface.

    "Firefox can't do this" "Hey, here's an extension" "Firefox can't do that" "Here's another extension". Prety quickly you will have a handfull of extensions, that might or might not break with the next Firefox version...

    Heck, I'll give you another example! There is an extension to (gasp!) minimize Firefox to the system tray, right next to the clock. In one of the last Firefox updates, that extension stoped working at my computer at work. Yes, FF is updated to the latest version and so is that extension, but everytime I use both together, FF just displays a big, empty window, with *nothing* to click or any menus. And guess what! At my home computer, I have the *same* version of both and it runs fine! And don't go blaming it on Windows, because I'm using the same Windows XP in both computers. Oh and in Opera, the hotkey for that specific funtion is Ctrl-H. No extensions, no breakups...

    So, about this whole "holy-war" agains IE... I'm just sitting and watching, waiting for the inevitable moment when this will blow on the face of the zealots... remember folks, FUD works both ways, and if you spread FUD to suport your product of choice, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass.

    And heres a little site for you to read: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyt hs.html#Security

    --
    "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
    1. Re:Stupid, stupid... by Khaed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, Firefox has an extension for it? Is it the one that breaks with every new Firefox version?

      This is problem #1 for Firefox (with the memory leak being #2), and is very stupid: Say you have five or six extensions, they discover a huge security leak, and you lose those extensions, at least until the developer catches up. And some of them are part of the reason you use Firefox. You're between a rock and a hard place. (Way back when 0.9 came out, I didn't update to it until damn near the time 1.0 came out because I liked my extensions.)

      don't give a flying rat's ass about code and source code, I, as a end user, just want things to work a certain way.

      And you just put your thumb on a huge problem in the Open Source community. There are people who actively try and discourage the use of closed source -- including drivers like the nVidia ones -- simply because they're closed source. I have an nVidia graphics card. I have Linux. I want to use the two together. (And note: installing the nVidia driver was the easiest thing I've installed in Linux.) Would I rather nVidia release their source? Sure.

      But fuck it, sometimes you just want it to just work.

      I use Firefox as my primary browser. I've customized the hell out of it. I like that about it. But this article made me think of the last time I went to a website that outright refused to load without IE, and it offended me. I remember the "best viewed..." crap. Telling the user what to use is a load of horse shit and is the type of thing we're better than.

      Firefox is a better browser than IE. There is no doubt about this in my mind. But annoying people won't get them to change. Here's how I got my sister to use Firefox: It blocks pop ups by default, and it has tabs. Those two things were enough. She doesn't give a shit if it uses the "em" correctly. My mom and dad don't give a hoot about XHTML.

      Open source? Good luck getting 90% of users to care what that means. Most people don't even understand what source code is.

      Not everyone is a computer geek, and not everyone has to be.

    2. Re:Stupid, stupid... by Denyer · · Score: 1

      Can you make extensions for Opera? I only ask because there are several I find extremely useful in Firefox (such as the ability to remove page elements before printing) and couldn't find a way to implement these things in Opera. If it was similarly extensible, rather than working out-of-the-box for a limited number of users and leaving others out in the cold, I'd give it another shot as a regular browser.

      BTW, try the Nightly Tester Tools if you want to force extension compatibility. And bear in mind that most users don't touch extensions -- most users don't look for more functionality than is in IE, in fact.

      --
      Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    3. Re:Stupid, stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/fi refox-myths/

    4. Re:Stupid, stupid... by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      You can use Greasemonkey scripts in Opera. Under preferences, advanced, content, javascript options. You tell it the folder you have the scripts in, and put ;greasemonkey after it. Actually, Opera has it's own "User JS" thing. I'm not sure if you can mix those with greasemonkey scripts or not. This and the linked next article talk about Opera equivalents to extensions.

    5. Re:Stupid, stupid... by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      I just searched, seems you can leave the ;greasemonkey off the end of the path, and Opera will load .user.js files as greasemonkey and other .js files as Opera User JS.

    6. Re:Stupid, stupid... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I hate to agree with this post because it's going to get moderated badly, but umm yeah you're basically right.

      I still do stick with FF, but I have experienced exactly the same problems as you in regards to identical versions of FF, same version of Windows, same user permissions, same plugins but problems at work but not at the home version or fine on work and home but not ok on my laptop etc.

      On top of that, using firefox "screws up" my wireless link at home - it times out, / and kills the link.

      Lies you might say? - well I'd agree with you, it's illogical - yet if I use IE or remote desktop or azureus or ANY network application at home on my laptop the link is fine, as soon as I open FF and actually browse with it, bam my link dies or stops short etc - once it's struggled to open the page but finished talking to the network, the link remains fine.
      beleive it or not.

    7. Re:Stupid, stupid... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      On top of that, using firefox "screws up" my wireless link at home - it times out, / and kills the link.

      Does it screw up the link with that one computer or with all your computers? I have a laptop at home that occasionally loses its connection; I've blamed it on interference from neighbors' wireless signal, because changing the broadcast signal on the router tends to fix it. How have you managed to isolate the problem to the browser?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    8. Re:Stupid, stupid... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      It's been isolated purely by trial and error - and sadly only one machine (Dell 8600, 2200 intel wireless nic) is on the wireless network.

      It's absoloutely fact, infact I should record a movie of it, I can browse over IE all day long or RDTOP / Emule / Azureus till the cows come home - I can even open FF, it's just when FF hits the network to obtain data - bickety bam link is dead - terrible stuff.

  43. "Ethic" hackers vs. "commercial" trojan writers by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're not talking about hackers trying to "prove" that ISS is insecure, or some people defacing some homepage. There's no money in that, and that's something done by people who do it for bragging rights, for street (or rather, IRC) credibility and for their ego.

    Trojans are a business. The amount of POCs and ego-boosters is dwarfed by the number of commercial trojans and worms. Hacking servers and taking down sites is no business. Trojans is.

    Now, to be profitable, trojans need a high penetration. And for this, they have to work on as many machines as possible. That's one of the reasons why there are VERY few trojans/worms for Mac and Linux, and as far as I know, there are actually NO commercial trojans for those systems. It doesn't pay as well as writing one for Windows. And if the browser is an issue, your target for a commercial attack is the IE. Simply for its penetration.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. Doesn't use his script on his site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it. This guy running a website which is advertising a script to either nag IE users or block their access entirely, yet he hasn't even put it on his own site. Surely that'd be the first thing you'd do?

  45. why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are so many people obsessed with reducing the popularity of Internet Explorer? Firefox is better, but not by much.

  46. Browse Happy by rathehun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why create an annoying additional campaign. Use an existing one:

    http://browsehappy.com/

    R.

    1. Re:Browse Happy by bunratty · · Score: 1

      For the potentially lucrative Google Firefox referral program, of course.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:Browse Happy by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
      Why create an annoying additional campaign

      For the money, obviously. A friend pointed me to killbillsbrowser.com the other day. It was amusing, but all it was was an advertisement to tell people to switch firefox. But then I noticed something quite peculiar; there was no link to mozilla.org so that people can actually switch! Then I realized that my ad filter had blocked the advertisement for this google program to make these guys money. They don't give a a crap about firefox. They are just doing it to make money. Which is quite depressing, actually.

      This is a growing problem in the open source world; for instance, a while ago I discovered a scammer that had managed to inveigle his HOWTOs into the linux documentation project. His HOWTOs were just a bit of filler and links to his website where he was charging money for code such as a String class which any student writes in their first programming class.

      As our community has grown larger and larger, more and more unsavory characters from the "real" world have started nibbling at the edges. I don't know how to prevent it other than to be vigilant and use our many eyes to find and point out the frauds and the scammers.

    3. Re:Browse Happy by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
      I can't comment on the specific examples you cite, but I get the feeling that your opinion (and the opinion of MANY in the OSS community) is that making money in the OSS community is taboo at best and immoral at worst.

      I contend that the BEST way for OSS to increase its traction is to facilitate money-making possibilities! Profit is not inherently bad.

      Granted, profit possibilities will bring out the scammers. But scamming your customers is not a solid long-term business strategy. Let 'em come and go. Meanwhile, encourage entrepreneurs to create wealth using OSS. It will benefit OSS in the long run.

    4. Re:Browse Happy by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
      I see your point. It really is one of those "shades of grey" issues. I have no qualms about people making money *using* open source software (in fact, wirespring makes a custom linux distro that very much relies on open source software); and I was one of the "open source community" people offered to purchase RedHat IPO stock (although E-trade didn't let me actually get them since I refused to lie on their survey as they suggested)
      What gets me upset are these people that are trying to make money just by misleading and scamming people and hanging out just on the borders of legally actionable fraudulent behaviour; and that they are sometimes successful precisely because we are such an open community. I was able to get those phony HOWTO's taken out of the linux documentation project simply by pointing it out to the guys running it. But more and more of these scammers are becoming more and more subtle, and it gets harder to detect them and weed them out.

      The situation is even stickier with situations such as this "explorer destroyer" which is possibly well-intentioned, but at its root only attracting these greedy people with nothing to contribute because "don't be evil" google is giving out money... so is it wrong for google to be giving out that money? These aren't easy questions.

  47. Blame Democracy TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    another retarded project from participatoryculture.org from Worcester, Massachusetts as they registered the site

    Open source needs to be more professional than the competition not less
    with people like that on board who needs enemies, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

  48. OK, let's do this the squeaky clean way. by r00t · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't actually detect IE. Use an IE "bug" to display the message. Make sure that no standards-compliant browser would show the message.

  49. As a web designer/developer... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I'd much rather be able to use a standard like xhtml, and actually have it work as XHTML. Try to deliver it with the correct Content-Type header and IE will try to download it. Give it the wrong header (pretend it's html) and IE and everything else will interpret it as HTML. Why? Because while IE supports XML+XSLT just fine, it doesn't support XHTML.

    Every browser has some annoying lack of web standard support. Note how few browsers actually pass the Acid2 test -- including Firefox.

    And the technical and philosophical merits of using the new, official web standards are completely killed by IE itself being a bully.

    I agree with you in general, but in this case, yes, I'm going to annoy IE users just as much as IE-only websites annoy Firefox users. Only, instead of shutting them out entirely, I'm just going to annoy them, and hopefully get them to switch to something decent.

    Oh, and I don't see many users choose IE by choice, instead of by default. Even those who ridicule me for using Linux and love Microsoft choose Firefox over IE.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:As a web designer/developer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use IE by choice! Firefox sucks, because it's updated constantly and breaks every damned plugin every time it's updated.
      Granted every time I visit wirednews.com and host of other sites I get messages stating scripts are disabled, yada yada, yet none of you goofy web developers seem to realize I don't want Java, perl, PHP, ActiveX, Active scripting, paste operations via script, cross site scripting, flash etc. With IE I can turn all that crap off or on, based on individual websites and how much I trust them. I don't go to cnn.com to view DRM enabled media player 9.0 videos or Flash advertizing, I go there to read. If I wanted to view a bunch of bullshit video I'd click on MMCTV.exe and watch the Fox News channel. My guess is that you, your friends and 99.9% of the idiots that post this kinda crap on /. have never even tried to figure out how to use IE's security settings. If you had you'd soon realize that it is the most secure browser. I will grant you this, at IE's default security settings it's possible that a script kiddie could shove a louisville slugger up your tight ass.

  50. I guess you're ignorant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good argument or fact stands no matter who made it, but you're arguing that you should only pay attention to the superficial aspects and stigma surrounding those who may actually spout something useful? Way to go.

  51. Site doesn't render correctly in IE by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

    Site doesn't render correctly in IE...

  52. can't post any links by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    but, surely, you've seen people bitching about IE-only sites before. If not, you haven't been around enough, i suspect.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:can't post any links by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course people bitch about IE-only sites, and rightly so. The OP made it sound like it was open source advocates who were the main ones doing so, implying that they're now being hypocrites by doing exactly the same thing with Firefox. I think the people who were complaining about IE-only sites will complain just as loudly about forcing users to use Firefox. From the comments in this article, it would seem like that is the case. No hypocrites.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  53. *yawn* by ABoerma · · Score: 1

    This site has been around for ages. The "under 50%"-section said it would "go live next week" a year ago and still does, so why is this news?

  54. I take the passive aggressive approach by squarooticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just don't have the time to see if my page looks good on every browser, so I simply code to the standard and if IE can't display it properly, tough nuts. I include a small but helpful link to Firefox on the front page.

    --
    [ home ]
  55. THIS is what a good webmaster should aim for: by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Informative

    He/she should aim to be able to certify his/her site works in ANY browser. http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

  56. Why not? It worked for IE, by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    Or are you one of those pretend slashdotters that only ever used windows/ie so you never noticed those IE only sites?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Why not? It worked for IE, by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, can't say it's true. I'm pretty sure I've got more Linux/Unix experience than you, both personally AND professionally. Only a little Mac, though. Never found them to be as "easy to use" as people claim. Too different from anything else. But, I digress. As a matter of fact, I currently prefer Firefox, but it's really just for the extensions. It doesn't matter, though. I let people use what they want to use. Why is it your typical slashdotter's all about choice, until someone makes a choice that doesn't conform to their beliefs?

      I guess in a way, I am one of those PRETEND slashdotters.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
  57. Why we exclusively develop for IE by lancejjj · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those who only develop for IE are almost always working under contract.

    Imagine, for example, that you're a retailer called "The Void". Your internal IT department can't do much, as you decided long ago that it is best to outsource all development. You approach your IT services vendor and say:

        "I want a retail website where I can sell my goods".

    Your vendor says:
        "Great! That'll cost you $8 million, and we'll give you a pretty site"

    The vendor writes up a contract, you sign, and you get a web site.

    Then, once you go live, you get all these complaints from customers. WHAT is going on? You hire an expert to find out. It turns out that no one at "The Void" was smart enough to actually understand the ramifications of the contract. The site, as built, only works with IE.

    You open a discussion with the firm you contracted with:

    You: "Oh, you guys screwed up. Fix it."
    Them: "No, you signed off already. You even paid us. Sorry."
    You: "Fix it"
    Them: "It'll take another $1 million"
    You: "No budget."
    Them: "Bye!"

    It is easy and inexpensive to design and build for all modern browsers. It's just that many IT contractors like to milk money out of their customers. Building for IE alone is an easy way to milk money.

    1. Re:Why we exclusively develop for IE by bunratty · · Score: 1

      It's more just laziness and stupidity. I fixed a website that worked only on IE for Windows last year. The fix was to add the www. to some URLs, and took me about an hour to find the problem and fix it. After that change, it worked in Firefox, Opera, and Safari. The original web designers must have been just too lazy to test in any other browsers or too stupid to figure out how to fix it. It doesn't take $1 million to fix most IE-only sites, give me a break!

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:Why we exclusively develop for IE by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      What utter horseshit. So you think you can broadly define all contractors as underhanded thieves who will deliberately mis-design a website in order to bilk their customers of more money? I think that is remarkably stupid and unfair.

      Yes, they may not do adequate testing for all browsers, there are many Microsoft-only shops out there that can't seem to see beyond the MS Horizon at all, and don't adequately explore other technologies. Yes, the client may not know enough to request cross-browser testing, or may have decided against that portion of the design process for budgetary reasons etc. To paint all web design contractors as brigands is however beyond stupid.

      The core problem is of course that Microsoft deliberately develops software that is not compatible with established standards in order to distort those standards by means of exploiting their de facto control over the market. As a result developers have to perform extra testing just to make sure their design is compatible with the real standards from W3C, and also to make sure their site desplays on the BuiltInPieceOfShitBrowser IE that Microsoft has deliberately failed to bother improving lo these many years. In a reasonable world, MS would have been forced by the courts to uncouple IE from their OS so that users could have a real choice as to their browser software, but I guess when you have 38 Billion in the banks you are beyond the courts - as we can see from the results of the DOJ investigation :(

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:Why we exclusively develop for IE by BeerMilkshake · · Score: 1


      I develop web applications/sites under contract, and I find the opposite.

      Early in the project, I talk to the client about the browser issues and they always say they only care about IE. They just don't care about standards and such - that's my problem to deal with.

      To do what the parent suggests, to develop the app for IE only hoping to get the change request, strikes me as shady if not unethical. Set the project scope correctly at the start, make sure the appropriate efforts are planned, and execute the plan.

      If you tell the client about cross-browser and they say they dont care, then they cant complain when it works for IE only. At least it was their choice.

  58. This is stooping too low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as others have posted, I code websites to display in major browser versions like IE5, IE5.5, IE6, FF, NS, Safari. It's a lot harder to do this, due to browser quirks and non-standard script execution, but its worth it. I see a day coming when all browsers work correctly. This is a just a childish way to get back at "the Man". Firefox will stand on its own against IE; it doesn't need tricks and greed to win market share.

    1. Re:This is stooping too low by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is wrong of me. But I can't trust layouts to CSS.

      I have to use tables instead otherwise it just won't display the same in IE/FF/MZ/O/Safari.
      I know that tables should be left to tabular data, however, I also know that tables work the same in all browsers, layouts in CSS rarely do.

      This is what makes me stick to 'bad practices'.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  59. Nice for people with nothing to do by zpok · · Score: 1

    I see no difference to websites that are IE only, Flash only, Windows only, etc. In essence it's just a big FUCK YOU at the hapless visitor who for some reason or other still uses IE.

    If you can afford to drive away your target audience, fine. Go for it. But apart from throwing your own frustration at the end user, I see no benefit whatsoever.

    Can't imagine any end-user going "Oh, well, I'll download Firefox then, no problem."

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
    1. Re:Nice for people with nothing to do by craznar · · Score: 1

      Can't imagine any end-user going "Oh, well, I'll download Firefox then, no problem."
      Exactly - especially when we have spent years educating them NOT to download strange programs off unknown websites.

      --
      EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    2. Re:Nice for people with nothing to do by zpok · · Score: 1

      :-) ha! didn't think of that one.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  60. Referral money by ID10T5 · · Score: 2, Funny
    1) Design an evangelical hack to promote/support Firefox.

    2) Get a link to your site posted on /. so you can rake in referral $$ from noob /. readers checking out your hack.

    3) Profit!

    I finally figured out #2!

  61. Paranoia about IRCing as root by Myria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's all this paranoia about IRCing as root, even servers that K-line root@*, but it's all pointless. Most people IRC as root, including me, because they run mIRC in Windows.

    I don't see it any different than web browsing as root, and guess what, there has been far more exploits against M$IE than there have against mIRC. Or xchat.

    Melissa

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:Paranoia about IRCing as root by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > Most people IRC as root, including me, because they run mIRC in Windows.

      Give me a automated method to identify if users are IRC'in under a Administrator account under Windows, please.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  62. Whats the deal with the editors? by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

    I know one of the guys involved in the project, and submitted this story about 2 months back. What the hell has happened to the editors recently? If its not perfectly good topics being carelessly turned down, its calling topics "[Popular Product Here] Killer!!"

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    1. Re:Whats the deal with the editors? by craznar · · Score: 1

      "I know one of the guys involved in the project, and submitted this story about 2 months back."

      Don't be silly, they only accept articles from people who know the combination. :)

      --
      EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    2. Re:Whats the deal with the editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I was right... it is a dupe... I knew I've seen this before, some months ago.
      Anyway this is not good, Google is using FireFox in their war against MS... this may very well kill FF.

  63. fema.gov? by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice the screen shot has "http://www.fema.gov" in the addres bar? I wonder what message they are trying to convey...

  64. atypical /. responses? by jbengt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What, no comments about FireFox "memory leaks"?

    1. Re:atypical /. responses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current Firefox Memory Footprint: 602MB

      Current number of tabs/windows open: 1

      Are you still gonna claim the memory leak issues don't exist?

    2. Re:atypical /. responses? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      You read way too much into a couple of double quote marks.

    3. Re:atypical /. responses? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I agree, it does grab a lot of memory on my Fedora laptop. Still it's not anyway near the memory / CPU hog that, for example, Adobe Acrobat Reader is for me.

  65. Nominal firefox sucks post by craznar · · Score: 1

    Yes, Firefox crashes, hangs and aborts way more often than IE.

    It's an unstable bastard.... but I still use it.

    Why ?

    I'd much prefer an old rust bucket holden I can lock, than a brand new merc someone can steal at a moment's notice.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    1. Re:Nominal firefox sucks post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just use Opera

  66. Playing the winning guy, of course by hackwrench · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Jesus wasn't playing the nice guy when he cleared the moneychangers out of the Temple, although there are those who will argue that he wasn't exactly playing the winning guy when he died on the cross.

  67. this doesn't even link to getfirefox.com... by ziplux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The button they advocate putting on your site links to the Google Toolbar page. From there, it is not clear at all how to download Firefox, although they make it very clear how you can download the Google Toolbar.

    If I were going to direct people to download Firefox, I would send them directly to getfirefox.com.

    1. Re:this doesn't even link to getfirefox.com... by afree87 · · Score: 1

      Try clicking the button while using Internet Explorer :)

  68. When is it necessary to coopt others? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Unless you can give a reasoned answer that question, you are just assuming that it isn't necessary to coopt others.

  69. MOD DOWN PARENT PLEASE by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I am a mostly konqi user (but at moment on FF/Windows due to work). I can tell you that konqi will work, but it does not work correctly. With FF, gmail will do some very nice things with FF (and I assume MSIE). In particular, it does pop-up frames with address during the send to/cc/bcc. Gmail is using ajax scripts that work better on browsers that are compliant. I believe the most recent konqi (3.5) does a good job (but I have not upgraded to find out), but the majority are on 3.3.x. Finally, you will note that they allow you to use the site. IOW, it is your choice, but they will notifiy you.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  70. Idiots. by pupstah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What an absolutely stupid way to promote. Insult the competition, first sign that you have nothing to offer.

    Change the wording on this crap, and it ---might--- be worth using. Still doubtful.

    --

    -- pupkick

  71. Extranets, vertical markets, gov't sites by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Um, never? Can you point me to a few of these? I use Firefox all the time and have NEVER encountered one. Yes, not once.

    I periodically encounter this problem with password protected sites, usually ones built around some sort of proprietary ASP package. For example, our school extranet (which runs on EResadvises: "Our recommended browser is Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher." That said, I've never encountered problems accessing it using Firefox.

    I think a good number of sites make users think they won't run in Firefox or other browsers, simply because the site's managers for whatever reason stick those goofy "IE preferred" messages on the home page. For the life of me I can't figure out why as a site manager you would want to make users think they have fewer options than you're actually providing them.

    Unfortunately there are some features in certain vertical market web-based tools like LexisNexus and Westlaw that only work with IE. All of the basic features work in Firefox, Safari, et al, but a few of the advanced features do not.

    Recently, the US Copyright Office got hammered for creating a website that explicitly supported IE and NS only. The language on the Electronic Copyright Office site says: "The Siebel software, upon which eCO is based, has been successfully tested with Netscape Navigator 7.02 and Internet Explorer 6.0 and may work equally well with other desktop web browsers."

    Overall, I think things are trending in the right direction. More and more web developers, even the ones living in their own little bubbles, are starting to grok that building sites around IE (around any single browser, for that matter) is a bad idea.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Extranets, vertical markets, gov't sites by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      For the life of me I can't figure out why as a site manager you would want to make users think they have fewer options than you're actually providing them.

      Simple. An "IE preferred" message simply means "tested in IE". It might work in Firefox, but not too many people are willing to go out of their way to test in every browser in existence. Heck, I test in Firefox because I use it (and it's gained some popularity), but I never test on a Mac. It's simply too small of a segment, and I'm not about to buy a Mac just to test with it.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Extranets, vertical markets, gov't sites by Infonaut · · Score: 1

      An "IE preferred" message simply means "tested in IE".

      I see your point, but it still seems exclusionary by nature. The inference I take from an "IE preferred" message is that for some reason it doesn't work properly in other browsers. In the absence of an "IE preferred" message, I assume the site works as it should, meaning whichever browser I use, I'll be ok.

      ... I never test on a Mac. It's simply too small of a segment, and I'm not about to buy a Mac just to test with it.

      That depends on the type of site you're maintaining, obviously. I assume you've seen BrowserCam. It's pretty useful, though a bit slow at times. I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum, since I use a Mac to develop websites and don't want to hassle with VirtualPC or buy new hardware just to test sites in Windows. One thing I really like about BrowserCam is that I can test against all kinds of browsers, not just the latest versions of IE.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  72. The standards are broken. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    They should support a more gradated implementation. and don't recognize that there are always going to be bugs. I doubt that any implementation is bug-free and thus correct, but where do you draw the line?

    Furthermore, the standards do nothing for end-user customizations, figuring the content provider rules over all.
    Is "legacy CSS" mode a standard? If IE isn't accepting XHTML DOCTYPE how can it be put into "legacy CSS" mode because of it. Not accepting the MIME type means showing a blank page.

    1. Re:The standards are broken. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      No, IE legacy CSS is something that predates CSS2.

      The issue: Unless IE sees an acceptable DOCTYPE, it goes into legacy mode. Since it doesn't understand XHTML, it assumes it's the same as old-fashioned vendor HTML. This creates the ironic situation where people who are trying to be all standards-compliant actually make their situation worse on IE and end up creating a lot more non-standard workarounds than is actually required.

      Also, I think you're confusing the DOCTYPE (in the document) and the MIME type (in the header). IE correctly ignores the XHTML doctype, because it's not an XHTML user agent.

      Now, I suppose that MS could easily do what Apple did and makes some minor tweaks to have Pretend-XHTML support. But is that really what the XHTML supporters want? In fact, what *do* the XHTML supporters want? AFAICT it's a "newer==cooler" thing because there's practically no advantage serving XHTML to browser clients. It is either ignored, or it is slower.

      (Which is not to say that XHTML can't be used as part of a back-end CMS or something.)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:The standards are broken. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Correction: IE correctly ignores the XHTML MIME Type, because it's not an XHTML user agent.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  73. I call your bluff. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Since you're posting Anonymous Coward and thus can't check your comments for responses, I would have ignored it, but somebody marked your post insightful, so for those who lean that way, I'll explain the problem. It's one thing to say you have worked with standards and all they do is slow progress to a snails pace, and another thing to prove it.

    There are some that may say that it's obvious that things are moving at a snail's pace, but then you have to prove that the standards are what's doing it.

    1. Re:I call your bluff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world would you assume I can't check responses?

      The reason I have such low regard for standards is 30 years of watching them used for nothing but political BS.

      Back in the dinosaur age I watched FIPS standards dictate what was an acceptable COBOL program - and not one single real world application cared.

      Then as a short termed employee of Microsoft sales I watched POSIX standards thrown out as anti-Microsoft stance, so MS went through the motions to get POSIX compliance, and all of sudden no one cared about POSIX anymore. Imagine our surprise.

      Then in the Crypto world I had to write code to (again) FIPS standards that were ancient and flawed - but had to be done. Soon after the writing was complete FIPS crypto became politically un-important (it had already been technically unimportant for a long time).

      About this same time I watched my own company do the ANSI standards dance and got to see first hand how deals and backroom handshakes are made in order to get a crypto standard 'approved'.

      I also enjoyed writing to ISO and IEE standards for the session layer of an X400 stack - interoperability for the FAA - finally something I can definitely see as being useful. Then I watch the lies and cheats applied to certify compliance for use in the FAA - what a let down.

      Sorry but Standards are more a way for certain people to get industry perks than anything else. Think of standards committees as lobbyists on steroids. Nothing becomes a standard without a political reason and without a backdoor payment to committee members.

      I support Firefox as competition for IE. I hope it can gain penetration and make the market better - but standards will never make that happen - and depending on them to do such is like giving up.

  74. If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for everyone by ragingmime · · Score: 1

    The other day I even saw one that explicitly and snobbishly said the only way they would "support" using a Mac was with Windows and IE loaded in VirtualPC.

    Well, yeah, and I hate seeing stuff like that too. That said, they probably didn't actively block users who were using a different setup. If you block users who don't use your browser of choice, you're worse than these people. It doesn't matter which browser you're talking about; blocking users based on web browser is always annoying and snobby.

    I believe web designers should try to accommodate as many users as possible, because the idea of a web page is to share information or build community, not to lock people into using your software of choice. This goes for MS fans just as it goes for Free Software fans. If people can't view a website, that hurts both the webmaster and the viewers. Having to download new software to view a web page or watch a video is a headache to everyone.

    Saying that you need Firefox might actually make users think that IE is more open, because pages built for IE "just work." Of course, that's not true - in fact it's the opposite - but by blocking IE users, you're frustrating them, making their lives that much more difficult, and making them that much more annoyed at Firefox. Plus, actively turning away users is not something *any* webmaster who cares about his/her readers would do, IMHO.

    --
    I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
  75. done already :-P by pieroland.net · · Score: 1

    I already did something very similar. If you open my webpage www.pieroland.net using IE, you'll see a silly red banner on top of the page which will encourage you not to use IE. This banner won't prevent you from visiting the website, but remains visible in all the pages. I made it with few PHP lines and a handful of CSS :)

  76. Subtlety works better ... by manastungare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a similar browser detection script, but I don't want to antagonize my users. When they're using IE, I show them a text-only Google Firefox referral ad, and a brief note about why IE isn't quite as good.

    But I avoid the most common mistake that browser detection creates, that is to lock people out of sites that are perfectly functional. Agreed, some of my interesting CSS magic doesn't show up, but I don't want to annoy my users -- just get them to use Firefox.

    I also detect when Opera is faking itself as IE, and ask the user to set the user-agent string back to Opera, so that IE's web stats aren't overly inflated.

    1. Re:Subtlety works better ... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The amazing thing is that my bank's site (Citibank) actually locks you out (claiming unsupported browser), if you get Opera to identify as it self. But works fine if you set it to identify itself as Mozilla or IE.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Subtlety works better ... by smash · · Score: 1
      It's not amazing at all, it's common sense.

      Banks (and other businesses) need to be able to verify a secure (well, be happy it's "secure enough" to their knowledge/satisfaction) solution. Perhaps they haven't tested Opera enough, it has not been verified, so they will not "support" it. Perhaps their helpdesk have not been trained in it, due to the costs outweighing Opera's market share. Does not mean it doesn't work, just means that they're unwilling to put their business on the line and support people using it.

      I think a lot of people mistake "unsupported" for "does not work".

      These are 2 totally different things out there in the real (business) world.

      I mean, I run an aftermarket ECU in my car. This is "unsupported" by Nissan - doesn't mean it doesn't work, and combined with other modifications, give me douuble the rear wheel horsepower...

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    3. Re:Subtlety works better ... by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      I also detect when Opera is faking itself as IE

      No, you detect when Opera uses an IE user agent string with "Opera" appended at the end. Just like the default IE user agent is Mozilla with a mention of IE, for similar reasons. When I "fake Opera as IE," i.e. I use an IE user agent string without "Opera," you tell me to use Firefox.

      User agent strings simply shouldn't be used for anything important. They were designed for statistics, and that's the most they are good for.
  77. Yeah, but he was a freak. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    This man actually claimed to be the 'son of god'. His miracles weren't very impressive, and it wasn't till after his death that more than the lunatic fringe of society started to buy into the stories.

    I'm thinking that we should model this attempt after another man, named after an anti-semite, Martin Luther King Jr. He had the right tactics I think.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Yeah, but he was a freak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you ... I really haven't gotten past miracle #1, so I might not be in the best place to judge. From the way you talk, I'm guessing you've notched up quite a few to be in such a great position to judge ...

      That's really awesome. I'd love to meet you. See what you're doing with your life. I'm sure its something special. ... ...

      yeah.

    2. Re:Yeah, but he was a freak. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Miracle #1 WAS pretty impressive. It also makes me fail to understand all the tea-tottlers out there.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  78. XHTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to exclude IE, serve your XHTML as application/xhtml+xml, as it should be. If you want to clue in IE users as to why things aren't working out for them, put "Options MultiViews" in your .htaccess file, use both welcome.html and welcome.xhtml and only link to "welcome." In welcome.html explain that the rest of the pages are XHTML and a browser that supports it will be required, such as Firefox.

    Nothing personal against IE, when it implements modern standards everything will work just fine (it won't be with IE7).

  79. Popup ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically this project promotes firefox in such a way as to group it with advertisments from porn sites, sketchy software, and a monkey (when you click on it you win neat prizes!).

  80. His immediate followers weren't the lunatic fringe by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Fishermen and a tax collector? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle#Recruitment doesn't exactly depict them as the fringe of society. Sure, the tax collector was villified, but it's much like the RIAA. Is the RIAA paart of the lunatic fringe.

    Also he managed to attract crowds that had plenty of other diversions for their time, as prostitution alone was rampant back then. He also managed to either get invited to or gate-crash parties, so at least he knew where they were.

  81. IIS is more secure than Apache by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

    "By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers."

    Your argument might hold water if IIS were less secure than Apache, but IIS is more secure than Apache, and it's not even close, as these secunia reports show:
    Secunia - Vulnerability Report - Apache 2.0.x
    Secunia - Vulnerability Report - Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 6

    And your incorrect argument is brought up at least every week on slashdot (Apache is used more, but IIS is attacked more because it has more holes!), it's corrected almost every week by one of the respondents, yet it's *always* moderated as "Insightful". Mods, just because a piece of thought is part of the slashdot groupthink doesn't mean that it's insightful. Like many pieces of docrtring, it just might be totally wrong!

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  82. This one's for stupid ghey fanbois by Ingolfke · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously, this is only going to piss users off. They'll think your site is broken and only works with some browser they have to go install. If they've never heard of Firefox... maybe they'll think it's spyware. If they know what Firefox is they'll most likely be pissed that you're so arrogant as to monitor which browser they're using and either try to push your idiotic ideas on them.

    Stick with the Firefox logos and sharing the browser with friends. People who load this script on their sites are only trying to impress their fanboi friends.

  83. Whee!!! by zlogic · · Score: 1

    It certainly destroys it: Wheee!!!

  84. Re:What a load of crap by Hymer · · Score: 1

    ...Does firefox allow me to easily develop integration points with other well established packages(MS Office among many others)... I will turn this argument inside out and say : IE and MS prevents easy development of platform independent solutions based on standards.

    Just like the previous "reason" to use Firefox, you dorks actually think you can tell someone "Hey...you don't like chocolate cake, you like white cake!" Well, YES we belive we can (No, I am not a part of the "Explorer Destroyer" project)... MS has been telling us things like that for the past decade or more so why shouldn't we be able to say it ?

    No, and a developer who needs and uses the shortcuts provided by Microsoft are no real developer... he is a code monkey...
    a REAL developer vould provide a solution that would be platform independent and compliant to standards.

    --

    I really don't care if you use Firefox, Opera or Safari... I wil however not allow you to use Inetrnet Explorer.

  85. Been there, done that by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And tell you what: It works.

    My online game has 2 points where it tells people to switch. One is an occasional (once a week or so) friendly reminder to IE users that they should consider upgrading.
    The other is a page that simply doesn't work in IE. It's valid HTML 4, CSS 2 and IE breaks it horribly. So I catch IE users, tell them about the problem (i.e. IE doesn't properly support web standards) and then allow them to continue on and see the train wreck with their own eyes.

    For the past year or so, Firefox has been the #1 browser in my statistics (currently 51%, IE 37%). It works. It takes time, but it works.

    And before you cry - this isn't a personal "me and my dog" homepage, I have around 1500 players and 120,000 visits a month. And it's not a Linux site either, the OS statistics say 93% windows.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Been there, done that by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      this isn't a personal "me and my dog" homepage"

      Perhaps not, but that's how you manage it. The studio producer used to say to the man with a cause: "If you have a message to deliver, take it to Western Union."

    2. Re:Been there, done that by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but that's how you manage it. The studio producer used to say to the man with a cause: "If you have a message to deliver, take it to Western Union."

      Well, as far as I can tell joining his online game is free. That means there isn't a business to focus on, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get to. Even if he limited his site to people running Firefox 0.7 wearing pink bunny suits, yes that might detract from his game - but that's really just another hobby, not a business. I think he's found an excellent way to combine those to deliver a soft message to many IE users without being an ass about it. Yes, if he was running a business selling subscriptions I'd probably advice him to stick to business and keep focus on what brings in revenue. As it is, I really don't see what tree you're barking up unless you're working for Microsoft or something...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Been there, done that by Tom · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but that's how you manage it.

      Only if your definition of "professional" includes "not having an opinion and not caring for anything beyond the strict definition of the field".

      The quoted attitude of the studio producer explains why Hollywood only produces blanket, uninspiring crap. I don't mind a good movie with a message. Many good books are good exactly because they have something to say, and manage to say it well.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Been there, done that by Tom · · Score: 1

      Correct.

      And even if it were a business, I don't see why running a business has to mean not caring about the rest of the world. Sure, there are compromises you have to make between your agenda and your business needs - but it's up to everyone himself and his consciousness as to the details of the compromise. Many small business owners are open about their political or religious loyalties, and are doing well because they found ways to compromise or to mix business and "message" in a way that hurts neither.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  86. Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every by Spicerun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...but by blocking IE users, you're frustrating them, making their lives that much more difficult, and making them that much more annoyed at Firefox. Plus, actively turning away users is not something *any* webmaster who cares about his/her readers would do, IMHO."

    Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)? IMHO, this is long overdue and it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.

  87. no, it's not by idlake · · Score: 1

    I haven't started up IE this year at all; it simply isn't needed anymore.

  88. MySpace Code by ender-iii · · Score: 1

    With MySpace being one of the most frequently visited websites in the world right now, they need some MySpace code. Just imagine a nice anti-ie div popping up over that kid in the mirror holding taking a picture of him/her-self.

    --
    ender-iii
  89. Google to loose $800 million if successfull! by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    If google is successful in this campaign it stands to loose a lot of money. 80% IE usage and 1 billion internet users mean that it will loose $800 million.

  90. An Internet Divided by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    You totally don't get the point. People using IE are ignorant of the problems that non-windows users experience. They dismiss the complaints of those in the other position. I think you need to watch the documentary A Class Divided (for free online) to get a better handle of the type of problems such ignorance creates.

    Until IE users "walk a mile in another person's moccasins", they will just continue to accept and perpetuate IE's ostracizing of non-windows users.

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  91. Firefox AdSense Referral Program repackaged by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    This is just a variation of the Firefox AdSense Referral Program (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/19678) .
    The disadvantage: You have to put google adds on your website.
    It's not clear, but I think users also have to install the google toolbar

  92. good idea, except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it needs some options, for instance, a lot of people are starting to prefer Seamonkey over Firefox, even though FF is mofos baby. You could modify the script to give folks a choice and say like, "you would be much better off with one of the following alternative browsers" and do the links then.

    And personally, it wouldn't matter to me with google adsense or not, I don't care really. I know mofo makes some coin from it, but until they go back to fully supporting the suite over FF I only give them half credit. The suite was never broken, it didn't need "fixing" and you ALWAYS had the option of only downloading the BROWSER part of the suite, something you just can't seem to get otherwise apparently intelligent people to comprehend or even acknowledge.. FF, IMO, just slowed down development and fragmented the devs and users for a few years for no apparent good reason.

    Option three could be worded even better, they could admonish the people that IE is the single biggest cause of SPAM on the internet and there's no way to eliminate SPAM to any significant levels until people stop using it.

    IE-pwned-zombie botnets-SPAM, that's how it works, 99% of the SPAM on the net.

  93. Ummm, just about never by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    There's one site I've discovered in receant memory that warns me, the Logitech Harmony remote controls site. It notes I'm not using Netscape or IE, and as such can't gaurentee it works, however it does work fine. The only one I can think that requires IE is Creative's Autoupdate. It uses an ActiveX control, and thus mandidates IE. If you use another browser, you just do manual downloads as normal. Other than that, I can't think of any sites I've run in to in the last 6 months that have said anything. Some have little "designed for IE" things at the bottom, but that doesn't impair their functionality at all.

    Really, I see this as just trying to create problems where there are none. It's also very juvinile. OSS advocated like to claim the high road, claiming to be on morally high ground as compared to people like MS. However it seems they never hesitate to do the exact same sort of things they rag on MS for. If you really want to be the good guys, you can't pull stunts like this. If OSS is really about choice, it should include the choice to use non-OSS. To claim it's about choice, but then mandidate the choice be something you like is stupid. That's like having a rally supporting free speech, but then trying to silence those that don't agree with you.

    If it's REALLY about openness and choice then you need to be welcoming of people to your cause, win converts by excellence, and still be tolerant of those that don't agree and don't choose to do thing your way.

  94. Why does google pay $1 for every FF download? by Mishtara2001 · · Score: 1

    Why do they fund it? It could easy reach $20m with in a week or so, how does this benefit their share holders? Anyone has any links about this? Cheers, Moi.

    --
    "667 - Neighbour of the beast"
  95. Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.

    I'd agree with you, if it was their fault; but it isn't. As it is, preventing access to IE is every bit as bad as preventing access to non-IE browsers.

    If you want to code to the standards as Opera and/or Firefox implement them and let IE fend for itself, fine. If you check the user agent and simply block IE, then that's just plain dumb.

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  96. the sad truth and the real solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The incompatibilities between IE and firefox certainly do get on my nerves. In fact, incompatibilities with ALL browsers get on my nerves (and yes, there are issues between the W3C standards browsers too), but this campaign would never work.

    Also, the idea of making your pages only work with FF in an attempt to force users to change is kind of like communism... looks good on paper, but in reality doesn't work. That's the thing, we are in the real world here, and people aren't going to change their browsers because some website told them to. Also, if you are trying to make money from your websites, you are absolutly insane to hold back 80 - 90% of your potential visitors.

    There is a solution though. It's in the hands of the developers of the browers, and their marketing campaigns. Look at IE. It's clearly not the best browser (although it does render fast), but most people use it. Why? Because it;s already there, and requires the least amount of effort. Why get something new when I already have something that works? (in the eyes of most end users, this is sufficiant).

    For Firefox (or any other underdog browser) to really take off, there is only one clear solution. Have it preinstalled on OEM machines and set as default. Imagine if Dell decided to do just that? I'd imagine you'd start to see radically different numbers when checking your site stats.

    See, most users don't care about computer ideology and web standards. They care about the other passions and responsibilities in their lives (and rightfully so). When it comes to the internet, they just want to get on. They will do so in the easiest way possible, by using what they already have.

  97. I have a double standard and can explain why by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1
    One browser makes developers' lives easier as it increases in popularity. It adheres to published standards, and the way to make things happen correctly in it are public knowledge. The other browser makes developers' lives more difficult as it increases in popularity. It requires that a number of presentation routines have to have forks in them to accomodate its cute little way of doing things.

    As a web developer, I have *zero problem with people favoring the fox over IE, even through the mechanism of annoying users (assuming that method is effective, which it might not be).

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:I have a double standard and can explain why by ragingmime · · Score: 1

      One browser makes developers' lives easier as it increases in popularity. It adheres to published standards, and the way to make things happen correctly in it are public knowledge.

      I agree, and that's a good thing, but developers in turn have a responsibility to make users' lives easier, IMHO. I believe that making things easy and helpful for users should be job #1 for any web developer. Ajax isn't easy to learn, but it sure is helpful to users, and that's why it's so popular.

      --
      I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
  98. Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

    "Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)?"

    Because it's NOT acceptable to frustrate non-IE users and it shouldn't be acceptable to frustrate IE users for the very same reason. Being petty and annoying seldom gets anyone anywhere.

  99. ATM fees and deposit restrictions by tepples · · Score: 1

    You can use any bank in the world.

    In the United States, automatic teller machine owners usually charge $2 for withdrawals by non-customers in addition to any fee that the bank charges (also usually $2). In addition, ATMs generally do not take deposits of cash or checks from non-customers. So while residents of Fort Wayne, Indiana, have access to a dozen banks and credit unions, residents of Terre Haute, Indiana, must deal with Terre Haute First Financial if they ever want to deposit a check.

  100. The best way to increase non IE useage by scwizard · · Score: 1

    If a site like livejournal.com agreed to hand out more userpics to firefox users, then livejournal users would switch over to firefox en masse.
    You can catch more flies with honey then with vinegar. And IE users are a lot like flies.

    --
    ~= scwizard =~
  101. Google to loose $800 million nop gains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google toolbar is adware. A dollar per machine will be gained back with intrest with ad revenue. So it most likly $800 million out $1.6 Billion in. There is a profit here.

  102. YEAH!!! by hullabalucination · · Score: 2, Informative
    Or, what if Microsoft sent deliberately crippled HTML to Opera users in an effort to get them to switch to IE?!

    http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2003/02/14/

    Hmmm. Scratch that.

    * * * * * *

    You'll pay to know what you really think!
    --Bob

  103. Should use correct english by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I wish people who did this sort of thing used English correctly. It's one of my pet hates when people use "better" when they should have used "more".

    The pop up that greets you (shown on their example) says:

    "We see you're using Internet Explorer. Try Firefox, you'll like it better."

    People don't like things better. They like them more.

  104. Well, the best approach... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1
    ...follows naturally from your pet peeves (& some of the posts above). Don't promote strategies with a specific intention of frustrating IE users; just create compliant markup like you would in the better world of tomorrow. But when you do, display a "Page doesn't look right?" banner that informs visitors that their browser (i.e. IE) doesn't support standard HTML, and that it'd probably only take 2-3 minutes for them to try viewing the site with one of the superior, faster, fuller featured, more customizablier ;-), free, standards-compliant browsers that are available.

    I earn my living on the MS stack, and I was an IE-only user from early in my PC experience. Still, I was a permanent convert to Firefox on my first trial of it -- and pretty early in the beta process at that. The hook that got me to try it? When I saw that despite > features than IE's set, it was only a ~4.5mB download (compared to a ~60mB base IE package). The $$$ to go from 4 to 8 to 24 to (gasp!) 48 megs of ram to run Windows at any kind of reasonable clip had me pretty ticked. FF appealed to my impatient nature, as it promised a much quicker download & install than what I was used to. What's more, from what I'd heard it promised not to frak up my OS or hose other apps by putting tentacles way down into system stuff. IE had done that a plenty.

    If FF advocates want to evangelize Win+IE folks (and do so more effectively than they've done with Linux so far), the key dictum is: Remember the audience. They require some coddling. Their food needs to be pre-chewed a bit at first. Stay on-message with a simple one-two mantra: 1) "It's SIMPLER... Just try it!" 2) Those who have tried it would never go back.

    The Joe & Jane 6-packs who don't know or care about standards compliance can still understand a simple "We're sorry, but IE has known bugs that prevent it from properly displaying official, compliant HTML. Fortunately, nearly every other browser on the planet can display it just fine. It only takes two minutes, and we highly recommend you try viewing this site in FF. Those who have tried it are glad they did!" (Maybe a table graphic with red Xs and green check marks for browsers that support HTML would be better than a list. Shiny pictures is go.) More detail for those who want it: "It used to be that more webmasters could accomodate Internet Explorer's handicaps by just writing their sites using IE's unique, special language instead of real HTML. Now, however, IE's declining popularity forces us to make our sites with real HTML, so they can be properly read by the browsers that more people are switching to today. (Second graphic: Estimated Number or % of people switching TO each browser FROM another.)

    I make a conscious effort to entice friends and associates into trying FF. In my experience, FF downloads & installs in about 3 minutes. It prevents malicious code execution a hell of a lot better than IE, and it doesn't mess up anything else on my system. Everyone I know personally who has tried it loves it. That's the message that works best for me in person-to-person interaction, at least in the absence of some specific problem someone has that FF (or an FF extension) would solve in a jiffy.

    Now, go ye all and spread this gospel to people of all nations, tribes, tongues, and bit orderings....

    --
    Pi Ran Out
  105. Checking your responses by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Er, how do you check your responses. I post on Digg and find the lack of mechanism there daunting at best.

  106. pot + kettle = black by davmoo · · Score: 1

    Let's see...

    When Slashdotters find pro-IE sites that display different for IE users than Firefox users, they raise hell and decry it as evil.

    But when Firefox users make sites that render different, its okay.

    I thought Slashdot was supposed to be the side that says everyone should stick to fucking standards that render the same under all browsers. But then as long as I've been a Slashdot member and reader, I should be used to the high degree of hypocrites here.

    I think I need to go investigate Opera...I'm getting tired of the they-shouldn't-do-it-to-us-but-we-can-do-it-to-the m politics from both sides of the IE/Firefox turd pile.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  107. Oh, so you saw it happen? by FatSean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Because anyone could write down any number of miracles and attribute them to this person. The Gospels were written long after his death. But hey, if it's in an old book, it's gotta be true!

    My life is not special, and I don't pretend to be special. Perhaps you need to feel like you are more important than a plant or a bug in the grand scheme of the universe? Not I. I take my lot in life and run with it sans a silly belief about what happens when I die.

    --
    Blar.
  108. Jesus spoke against the actions of the majority. by FatSean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He denounced those who didn't worship his 'god'. Society at that time was accepting of others' beliefs...often regional gods were rolled into the Pantheon and everybody got along. Jebus didn't think that was OK. It's was his god or eternal pain.

    You know, how mainstream 'christians' think about...oh...the Mormons...or the Scientologists.

    Sure he attracted crowds...he was a freak!

    --
    Blar.
  109. Great. Another banner ad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just what I need. Another banner ad. Blow off, browser nazis.

  110. Any site by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Any site that wilfylly (as opposed to accidentaly') ruins my browsing experience because I don't use the browser of their choice, obviously has nothing useful to offer me.

    I only wish Google had an option to blacklist sites in the search-results based on filters.

    At work, I don't even have a choice in browsers.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  111. So test for W3C compliance... by samj · · Score: 1

    Drop a few tests in for non-compliance and complain about them using a 'non-compliant' browser rather than 'IE' - at least that way they won't feel like you're being racist :)

  112. Anyone notice the AdSense Referrals? by samj · · Score: 1

    The first step in the process is to sign up for an AdSense account. Should the visitor deploy this and actually make over $100 the creator(s) of explorerdestroyer.com get $20.

    Slashdot really should be more careful about posting this sort of stuff - fine if the money goes somewhere like the Mozilla Foundation, FSF, etc. but otherwise assisting this profiteering by sending millions of hits over to their site is wrong.

  113. The BIG Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greetings Slashdot community,

    When I originally read this article, I was going to write a furious reply about hypocrisy, double-standards, OSS religeous rhetoric, etc... (NB: I am _NOT_ anti-OSS, I just don't like those who back OSS religeously)

    However, after reading through a few responses, and a number of people endorsing this program, making points that it's "Quick to install, enforces W3C, etc...), a bigger point came to me.

    From the point of view of "Joe User", "Who Cares?".

    Do you honestly think that your average computer user is going to give a "Flying fuck at a rolling donut", about which browser he/she uses? If the browser works (ie. display web-sites), the user _WILL_ be happy. You can harp on about increased security, new features, OSS ethics, etc... all you want. Ultimately, the user doesn't give a damn. Security is the domain of the computer geek, NOT the average user. New features are nice and all, but the average user will NOT bother to learn to use them unless they really do revolutionise how they perform a task. I hate to disappoint those Firefox zealots, but tabbed-browsing is NOT revolutionary. Bloody-damn handy for us technically inclined folk and power-surfers (I've been using Firefox for years now), but I can say from experience, the average user will not care, have trouble learning and adapting, and frankly, revert back to good old IE.

    And the talk about W3C is absolute nonsense, as soon as you enter the realm of web-standards, any ability for Joe User to follow your point disintegrates in front of your very eyes. A browser is one thing, but talking about web-programming standards, HTML, XML, RSS, etc..., and the user will stare at you like a madman. Average computer users are NOT web-programmers.

    Ultimately, if the browser works, the user will be happy, and not willingly change. Further, any commercial site, or professional site won't apply this script. The only people that will apply such a script will be, yes, OSS supporters. And anyone here that thinks Joe User is going to browse to cowboyneal.linuxadmin.net needs their head checked. If they happen to stumble over it, hell will freeze over before they can be bothered spending 15minutes installing, and a couple of days (yes, typical users do not adjust to new browsers in mere seconds, strange I know), figuring out Firefox.

    Ultimately, this all counts for nothing, it won't impact on anything at all, except maybe piss a few decent users off ignorant of browser wars (and believe me, that is not a criticism of them).

    ---Dante's-Bathroom---

  114. W3C by nicolastheadept · · Score: 1

    The code should be used to exploit all browsers that do not follow W3C standards, this is mostly IE anyway, but it would be morally right if it did this.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  115. Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)?

    To add to what the last guy said -

    - people don't deliberately frustrate non-IE users, it's accidental / a bug
    - you're proposing deliberately frustrating IE users, which is just being a dick.